[MBTI General] Thinking vs Feeling...a false dichotomy?

[Jack Flak]

Okay.

How about, "Discussing MBTI without a preliminary definition of some version of the concepts..."?

Discussing Ni in this case seems relevant for the discussion seems to be warning that if the functions as conceived by Jung mean anything, it is as abstractions, being that none of the functions make genuine sense if viewed completely in isolation.

When Myers & Co. appropriated the functions, there's nothing at all to lead me to believe the definitions were left untouched, as far as intent is concerned. MBTI makes sense on its own terms, but only as long as there's no reference to Jung and his functions, and so I would say it was influenced by his work, but not based on it, even if it is claimed to be.

But now I'm interested... what are the better ways of conceiving Thinking and Feeling?

I've discussed my read on the matter in this very thread, for your viewing pleasure.

 

[BlueScreen]

But now I'm interested... what are the better ways of conceiving Thinking and Feeling?

Ti Te Fi Fe

We all know they work in completely different ways, and do completely different things. I sometimes can't follow an Fe type's argument any better than a thinker can. Obviously there are some similarities, but not enough to group them. An Ni Fe argument shouldn't be that different from an Ne Fi argument except the focus, but if you put the two side by side, they are worlds apart. Are Te and Ti that similar either?

 

[Kalach]

I've discussed my read on the matter in this very thread, for your viewing pleasure.

That would be this?:

Why? There's no reason it should be. Those who receive the proper result based on the four pref's have been categorized, and the only necessary next step is to analyze them. We don't have to apply functions to their psyches, we can analyze their behavior. The observable is all that matters in some schools of thought.

Jung calls F & T conscious, but I'm not so sure, especially with F. I don't use that angle at all, normally, in order to skirt the issue.

I define Feeling as the emotional processing of information, resulting in judgments, one example being "This is morally right." It can be separated from Thinking, the logic engine, because T is not concerned with end states, it only provides impersonal conclusions. What occupies more concentration would decide a preference. Abstractly, the person who makes 1000 internal F judgments per day and 600 T judgments is F.

Emotional processing? Okay. I'll go along with that because there isn't going to be any decisions of any kind without processing of some kind.

Consider an ENFJ. Lives in the here and now, is assailed by signs and signals of... stuff... that will affect his/her sense of well-being, acts. On what? An Fe/Ni/Se/Ti combo punch, yeah? There's yer processing. His/her behaviour shows a reaction to/anticipation of/shaping of environmental indicators--which happen to be of an "emotional" nature.

So, feeling is an affective state. It affects you. You get affected. (It was the ENFJs sense of well-being that got the ball rolling.)

Consider an ENTJ. Lives in the here and now, is confronted by imperfection and inefficiency, acts. But what the hell is getting him or her of their asses?

That question proves nothing in particular, merely suggests that in people it's really a lot easier to see how feeling makes things happen. Which sort of leads to the question, why does thinking happen?

Is it really just that way back when, with a glimmer in Daddy's eye and a quickening of Mommy's breath, someone started your biological engine going and these days you have to do something to deal with the stimulus that daily comes at you so you get used to doing various kinds of somethings...

Is it really that Thinking is the harder to give a satisfying definition too, or am I being dense? (Because I'm INTJ and Feeling so obviously contributes to what I do without my say so, so I think it is just affective rather than... something else?)


I seem to be getting nearer and nearer to saying Thinking and Feeling are abstractions that don't make complete sense conceived as discrete processes.


Wouldn't it be ironic if the famous INTJ caveat, I'm only interested in what I'm interested in, is not a product of cold and impersonal logic, but that interest is prompted by Feeling. Actually, I think that this is so. And probably, if I may wildly extend this intuition... INFJs are interested in what they're interested in not totally just from warm fuzzies, but from concern over what's true too (hence the famous harshness, perhaps.)


If that means something, perhaps it also implies that INXPs are closer to pure function use than are INXJs.

 

[Jack Flak]

Consider an ENFJ. Lives in the here and now, is assailed by signs and signals of... stuff... that will affect his/her sense of well-being, acts. On what? An Fe/Ni/Se/Ti combo punch, yeah? There's yer processing. His/her behaviour shows a reaction to/anticipation of/shaping of environmental indicators--which happen to be of an "emotional" nature.

Since everyone uses all 8 Jungian functions, even according to Jung, I always think it's quite silly to take a function and say it caused some thought or action unless you're very careful about it (No one is). When people give "ownership" of a function to a type, and say "That's why they do this, and no other type can do this," I really lose it.

So, feeling is an affective state. It affects you. You get affected. (It was the ENFJs sense of well-being that got the ball rolling.)

Consider an ENTJ. Lives in the here and now, is confronted by imperfection and inefficiency, acts. But what the hell is getting him or her of their asses?

Feeling drives everyone to action. There's no logical reason to do anything but sit in one place and do nothing until you die of dehydration.

I seem to be getting nearer and nearer to saying Thinking and Feeling are abstractions that don't make complete sense conceived as discrete processes.

Why not? All of this is the explanation of psychological systems, not neurological. We deal with the behavior we can observe, and it's not as if we're comparing Functional MRIs of "thinkers" and "feelers." Though it's not a bad idea, now that I think of it, today it is indeed abstract.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the famous INTJ caveat, I'm only interested in what I'm interested in, is not a product of cold and impersonal logic, but that interest is prompted by Feeling. Actually, I think that this is so.

It is.

And probably, if I may wildly extend this intuition... INFJs are interested in what they're interested in not totally just from warm fuzzies, but from concern over what's true too (hence the famous harshness, perhaps.)

If that means something, perhaps it also implies that INXPs are closer to pure function use than are INXJs.

Pure intuition you mean? (You probably don't, but I call INTPs Intuition/Thinking and INTJs Thinking/Intuition.)

 

[Wild horses]

In response to original OP; I absolutely agree! I have always felt that T and F are not clearly definied boxes to put people into. It also needs to be said that if someone employs a 'me-first- attitude in their decision making they are in fact being illogical. If someone is going to look after their selves and not others that person better start learning the art of self-sufficiency because if they do not then by not taking care of others they are in fact not taking care of themselves.

Take alturism out of the equation and look at everything in the universe as made up of tiny models of something bigger. If we think of the word 'body' it can mean our own physical selves but it can also mean something bigger, a group of people. Now as you would not neglect one part of your body and expect every other part to function optimally what would lead one to believe you can do that with the macro model of a body either. In a company if the floor workers are not working at their best then the mangement certainly will not prosper. Even the planets rely upon one another. It is madness not to care for others!

 

[Kalach]

If that means something, perhaps it also implies that INXPs are closer to pure function use than are INXJs.

Pure intuition you mean? (You probably don't, but I call INTPs Intuition/Thinking and INTJs Thinking/Intuition.

D'y'know, it's not until I try writing things down that I realise how often I speak/write inaccurately. No, I meant pure Thinking and pure Feeling. Thinking just of those two, and using the conventional model of function order, the influence of Thinking/Feeling on its opposite number is, or hypothetically is, lesser in INXPs (and in ENXJs) than in INXJs.

A novelty observation, perhaps. And perhaps wrong. Dunno.

 

[Unique]

I've thought on and off about the dichotomy between thinking and feeling for about five years now. My ideas on it have evolved over the years. Initially, I thought the thinking-feeling dichotomy was a good way to compartmentalize the way decisions are oriented by different people. Then, for a period of time I came to the conclusion that it's possible for there to be no dichotomy between thoughts and feelings--that a person could fall in love with an idea. More recently, a few ideas have emerged. First, that this "thinking-feeling" binary distinction is based on a gross oversimplification about the way people make decisions. Even the horribly stupid questions on the Myers-Briggs test like "do you make decisions with your head or heart?" is based on a fictitious dichotomy. No one makes decisions with their heart, all decisions stem from the brain. There are those who take others into consideration and there are those who consider only themselves. But to call those who consider others feelers and those who consider themselves logical is an invalid inference. Logic is only a system invented by and used for humans. If a basic assumption is that humans ought to pursue their own self-interest and maximize utility, as Adam Smith posits, then a person's logic should be oriented toward the self. If however we hold the basic assumption that decisions should be oriented around the self and the group (as John Nash posits) than the logic we employ will reflect this end goal which differs from Smith's.

Then we get into the "why" of how logic came to be annexed with self-interest. And I'd argue it has evolved this way primarily due to the influence of the wealthy class. In this sense, the wealthy have brainwashed society into believing that the "Right" is logical and anyone who is on the progressive "Left" who's actually trying to put a little more food on the table or raise the minimum wage must be an illogical feeling type. Such fictitious lies don't square well with economic and social realities, and I am here to expose this myth.

Thoughts?

My thoughts?

I stopped reading after you took "do you make decisions with your head or heart?" literally.

Thats my logic, and no I won't soften the blow to your feelings.

 

[LostInNerSpace]

Thoughts?

I've been thinking the same thing actually. See SolitaryWalker (Bluewings) post:

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nf-idyllic/722-100-f.html

This is full on implicit emotion. But is emotion the same as feeling? I score pretty high on the Thinking scale, but would never say I am devoid of feeling. I read in some book or another that feelings as physical manifestations of emotions--sounds reasonable to me.

 

[Nocapszy]

Your failure to carefully apply language is most probably the result of very low Thinking skills.

adjective-
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.

Well, that was pretty vague. Let's look at some of the words that keep coming up in those definitions.

[Reason]
–noun
1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
4. sound judgment; good sense.
5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.

Well by these definitions feeling could be rational, but then it still doesn't elevate feeling in terms of making good decisions.

All it does is to open up the word rational.
That is, me being wrong doesn't change the essence of Feeling.
All it does it to allow Feelers to be allowed in the proverbial 'cool kids' circle.

Everyone wants to be rational: most people aren't. It's too bad we keep changing the language to solve problems 'cause language doesn't even exist.
All we do when we change the language is to ignore a problem/advantage.

And you're giving it to them! You're defending the Fs (as if it were really even an attack...) -- much like an F would: By finding the definitions you like instead of finding the one that most appropriately conveys the message.
Changing the contents of the capsule -- but not the capsule itself.
If you do that in medicine, it's called malpractice, and people die.

I have an idea!! Why don't we have every word mean everything??!!??
Panacea all around!
Nevermind that no one will have any idea what anyone else is thinking!!! Nevermind lasting side effects!!!
It'll be so great!!

Exactly what is the point of slamming my post? Other than that you like to (think that you) make me look stupid (even though you haven't really...), I can't really see what progress is made.

Seems counter-operative to your claimed M.O. You're the one who's all about productivity, and ceaselessly complain about my lack of it -- which by the way is another worthless claim, by the way, since I've never lied regarding typology.

I think you just had a pimple on your asshole the same day I insulted you, and, like an ape, blamed me for the pain.
Now every time you see my name, it reminds you of it and you just rage all day for the rest of the day.

Well I have to apologize for my bad timing, but you ought to at least apologize for irrationally for calling me a pain in the ass as it really wasn't my fault.

Anyway, regardless of your personal feelings for me, my post actually has some relevance -- I suggest you give it a genuine look over and thinking to yourself "Oh this guy is an idiot!" after reading my post, instead of doing it beforehand, because I have reason[/b] to suspect that these feelings affect your rationality, by improperly focusing your attention.

 

[erm]

As an example, introverted feeling creates a system of values, constantly checks and rearranges the values trying to make there definitions tighter and clearer. It then analyzes any incoming data against that system of values in order to make a decision on how to act. It even supposedly creates these values through an interpretation of what will make you happiest, using primordial images, instincts, archetypes and all that. And that ability is supposedly what makes it skilled at producing "meaningful" art, essentially trying to translate them in a way other people will understand.

That is as rational as any other J function. You could probably solve a quadratic equation using that alone, though S and T functions are more efficent at that.

Fi is subjective because it's only present within the person, not the environment. Te and Fe on the other hand, are both concerned with data that is present only in the enviroment thus inter-subjective and thus more objective.

There's no clear empirical data backing any of this up, as with all Jung and MB's work.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

F and T does seem like a false dichotomy, as schizophrenic patients seem to gain their symptoms from having blunted emotions. They lose motivation and clear logical thinking because of this. So it would seem emotions cause the motivation to be logical and the ability to be logical. More and more studies are pointing towards this theory. This essentially destroys the main distinction between F and T functions.

All the functions of Feeling, Intuition, Sensing and Thinking require logic for there actions to be possible. Why Thinking would favour logic any more than the other functions who require it equally makes little sense.

Thus I agree that F and T is likely a false dichotomy. Unless they have little relation to logic and emotions, leaving nothing but a shared name.

EDIT: I just skim read Jung's descriptions, and surprise surprise he mentions logic once in reference to extraverted thinking, as a common factor of it. He mentions emotions once in reference to introverted feeling, but only to say Fi rarely responds to other people's emotions.

So it would seem Jung played little part in linking emotions and logic to T and F.

 

[LostInNerSpace]

Your failure to carefully apply language is most probably the result of very low Thinking skills.

I have to admit. I have not read the context. I read the first post and that's about it. This statement makes no sense at all. What makes you think [thinking] and language are inextricably linked? Language is just a means of expression. Another means of expression is art (including performance art). Does that mean people who can't paint have a low capacity to emote?

Stick to competitive glue huffing.

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

Not sure I get why it's a false dichotomy.

Most big decisions are based on emotion whether you're T or F, but the topics you prefer to study, which in turn will typically determine your career choice are strongly impacted by whether you're T or F.

 

[LostInNerSpace]

Not sure I get why it's a false dichotomy.

Most big decisions are based on emotion whether you're T or F, but the topics you prefer to study, which in turn will typically determine your career choice are strongly impacted by whether you're T or F.

I don't think it was intended to be interpreted like that anyway. T vs F is a preference. There are a finite number of questions in any given type sorter questionnaire, therefore we end up with artificially discrete intervals. There is no absolute maximum to Thinking or Feeling. I don't see how it possible to accurately quantify those functions. If anything it’s a good rule of thumb that someone high on the T or F scale has a strong preference for that kind of decision making.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Well by these definitions feeling could be rational, but then it still doesn't elevate feeling in terms of making good decisions.

All it does is to open up the word rational.
That is, me being wrong doesn't change the essence of Feeling.
All it does it to allow Feelers to be allowed in the proverbial 'cool kids' circle.

Everyone wants to be rational: most people aren't. It's too bad we keep changing the language to solve problems 'cause language doesn't even exist.
All we do when we change the language is to ignore a problem/advantage.

And you're giving it to them! You're defending the Fs (as if it were really even an attack...) -- much like an F would: By finding the definitions you like instead of finding the one that most appropriately conveys the message.
Changing the contents of the capsule -- but not the capsule itself.
If you do that in medicine, it's called malpractice, and people die.

I have an idea!! Why don't we have every word mean everything??!!??
Panacea all around!
Nevermind that no one will have any idea what anyone else is thinking!!! Nevermind lasting side effects!!!
It'll be so great!!

Exactly what is the point of slamming my post? Other than that you like to (think that you) make me look stupid (even though you haven't really...), I can't really see what progress is made.

Seems counter-operative to your claimed M.O. You're the one who's all about productivity, and ceaselessly complain about my lack of it -- which by the way is another worthless claim, by the way, since I've never lied regarding typology.

I think you just had a pimple on your asshole the same day I insulted you, and, like an ape, blamed me for the pain.
Now every time you see my name, it reminds you of it and you just rage all day for the rest of the day.

Well I have to apologize for my bad timing, but you ought to at least apologize for irrationally for calling me a pain in the ass[/b] as it really wasn't my fault.

Anyway, regardless of your personal feelings for me, my post actually has some relevance -- I suggest you give it a genuine look over and thinking to yourself "Oh this guy is an idiot!" after reading my post, instead of doing it beforehand, because I have reason[/b] to suspect that these feelings affect your rationality, by improperly focusing your attention.

That kind of over-punctuation is something like a neon sign that says "do not respond", but I tend to ignore those signals, don't I? I will clarify myself, for whoever bothers reading this.
(Well, true honesty demands me to admit that I might just be exercising at this point. I think it's a bit of both).


The notion that I pick the definition I like is basiically the opposite of what I do. I very consciously sought the words as they were being used (i,e adjective, noun, etc..) and examined every definition excluding ones that were entirely field specific (such as mathematical definitions, for example). The point being, that I most likely performed less selection than most people would. I attempt denotative literalism. It is through comparing literal interpretations that I determined rational should include Feeling. Indeed, Nocapszy did concede that much.

But he says that the "essence" of Feeling is the same. Essence is one of those words that always treads dangerously close to gobilty-gook, but I figure I understand the point. Feeling is the same, it has only had the classifcation around it shifted a little. This happens with species of animals all the time. the species certainly doesn't change in 5 years, merely, zoological taxonomist change the class it is in. And yes, that is all I have done, but that doesn't make my point insignificant. One need only imagine, based on the definitions I cited, what it would really mean if Feeling were actually irrational. To say such a thing would be highly misleading, and so it is unacceptable.

The statement that Feeling cannot make good decisions is questionable unto itself. There are however, for too many ways for me to look at this statement to bother innumerating, especially since the subject has really been about rational, and it's relation to Feeling, not so much the singular merit of Feeling.

The paragraph with all the punctuation marks obviously goes after a strawman. I do not want a totally relativistic vocabulary at all. Maybe, in the long run, the change of shit of language does mean that definitions are eternally relative in some sense, but that's a slow process, and what I do at the moment is more important. All I do is cite the dictionary, whatever state it is in at the time. In some cases, it does result in words becoming more broad than people are using them, as with this instance of the word rational. But more often, I find that words are more narrow than people commonly use them, and because of this, I have received far more accusation in my life of being nit-picky and exacting with language, than of being a relativist. The consistent case is, I do what the dictionary says. Why? Because it is the only thing we have for denotative meaning. If some people on this forum would like to take up the difficult task of establishing an accessible Typology dictionary, I wish them the best of luck.

And of course, like the gold-old finisher, judging my accuracy on pre-suppostions about my character or motive is fallacious.

The rest of the post is smoke (or perhaps more like steam). He is inaccurate in the assumption he has made about why or how I go about doing things. But the inaccuray of it is not as importat as the irrelevance of it. Practically speaking, it would take mutliple long posts to elaborate on everything about myself that he has commented or questioned, and none of it would be argumentatively pertinent.

 

[Nocapszy]

I have to admit. I have not read the context. I read the first post and that's about it. This statement makes no sense at all. What makes you think [thinking] and language are inextricably linked? Language is just a means of expression. Another means of expression is art (including performance art). Does that mean people who can't paint have a low capacity to emote?

Stick to competitive glue huffing.

You're just jealous I thought of it first.

Quit arguing with your feelings -- both you and the poriferan.
It's like you two think you hate me hard enough, my points are ruined.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

You're just jealous I thought of it first.

Quit arguing with your feelings -- both you and the poriferan.
It's like you two think you hate me hard enough, my points are ruined.

And he's telling me to start thinking outside of my presumptions.

 

[antireconciler]

Feeling drives everyone to action. There's no logical reason to do anything but sit in one place and do nothing until you die of dehydration.

The idea that of a pure impersonal logic may be something of a keystone to the belief that T and F functions can occur completely discretely, 100% one way or the other. Even if that were not possible, it would not follow that T and F is a false dichotomy. It's not as if T is reducible to F, or the other way around. These words are not synonymous in everyday speech, and aren't, even given their technical precision. Can we say, then, that T and F are not after all false dichotomies? Sure, and that's not to threaten the idea that somehow T and F are exclusive of each other, since that appears to be the real issue at stake.

However, the existence of a completely impersonal logic WOULD threaten the notion that T and F cannot occur discretely, since F is intimately bound with the self. If T is abstractable from the self, in virtue of its ability to generalize, then the self can be thought of as composed of discrete components, namely, a part joined to the universal and eternal, philosophy, etc., namely, Thinking, and a part joined to the conditions of finite existence and concern, namely, Feeling.

This abrupt distinction is not possible, on the grounds that Thinking cannot rise to the level of abstraction and dispassion without the ground of finite existence. There is, after all, no consciousness without a body, no thinking without affective feeling. Nor can the finitude of the thinking subject be established without the universal, which is the home of Thinking and reason and coherence. So, feeling to a self-consciousness in finitude which it reflects, even basely, is not possible without the logical foundation of the universal.

Since development occurs in the direction of reflectivity, Feeling appears as a base, unreflective foundation of Thinking, however, Thinking, for its part, was not possible without the logic of the universal, in effect, rising through its base, unreflective precursor in order to establish it, which it could not have done except of the logic which is the right of Thinking. Feeling, thus, however illogical an error prone, must be perfectly reconcilable with Thinking. Where this fails, it can only be a symbol of error, simply, a lack of clarity and reflectivity which is the will itself owning its object.

The will, thus, is bound up in Thinking and Feeling both, and so it must be said that every action taken in clarity and right thinking is also logical.

I recognize the lack of clarity in this argument. It is not yet well refined, but I'll keep working it into shape.

 

[Nocapszy]

That kind of over-punctuation is something like a neon sign that says "do not respond", but I tend to ignore those signals, don't I? I will clarify myself, for whoever bothers reading this.
(Well, true honesty demands me to admit that I might just be exercising at this point. I think it's a bit of both).


The notion that I pick the definition I like is basiically the opposite of what I do. I very consciously sought the words as they were being used (i,e adjective, noun, etc..) and examined every definition excluding ones that were entirely field specific (such as mathematical definitions, for example). The point being, that I most likely performed less selection than most people would. I attempt denotative literalism. It is through comparing literal interpretations that I determined rational should include Feeling. Indeed, Nocapszy did concede that much.

But he says that the "essence" of Feeling is the same. Essence is one of those words that always treads dangerously close to gobilty-gook, but I figure I understand the point. Feeling is the same, it has only had the classifcation around it shifted a little. This happens with species of animals all the time. the species certainly doesn't change in 5 years, merely, zoological taxonomist change the class it is in. And yes, that is all I have done, but that doesn't make my point insignificant. One need only imagine, based on the definitions I cited, what it would really mean if Feeling were actually irrational. To say such a thing would be highly misleading, and so it is unacceptable.

The statement that Feeling cannot make good decisions is questionable unto itself. There are however, for too many ways for me to look at this statement to bother innumerating, especially since the subject has really been about rational, and it's relation to Feeling, not so much the singular merit of Feeling.

The paragraph with all the punctuation marks obviously goes after a strawman.

Sounds like you're really grasping at straws to use that expression in this thread.
Just use the emoticon, F.

I do not want a totally relativistic vocabulary at all.

Oddly enough, your conceptual dislike of a relativistic vocabulary is counteracted by your practical favor of one.

Maybe, in the long run, the change of shit of language does mean that definitions are eternally relative in some sense, but that's a slow process, and what I do at the moment is more important.

Here's where I pull a BW and say "I do not understand the relevance at all!"

All I do is cite the dictionary, whatever state it is in at the time.

And here's where I, unlike BW discover the relevance, and proceed without confusion.


True enough, but not all dictionaries are consistent.
Ah but no matter that -- I'm sure an honest, progress oriented type like yourself wouldn't dare deceive by searching through more than one to find the definition he wanted for his argument. And further, I doubt he'd be unwilling to concede when said search yielded results opposing his claim.

Nary a mind this point.
We'll carry on.

In some cases, it does result in words becoming more broad than people are using them, as with this instance of the word rational.

I suppose you mean "words becoming more broad than people ought to be using them" since the becoming is an act of the usage.

That is, the way you've constructed this sentence is impossible.

Yes, I believe I made this very point in my last post -- about stretching the meaning of the word to include more.

But more often, I find that words are more narrow than people commonly use them, and because of this, I have received far more accusation in my life of being nit-picky and exacting with language, than of being a relativist.

So then the last paragraph is to clear your name.

Again you make the mistake of assuming my attack was on your character rather than your points.
Please keep this in mind -- I'm sure it's difficult, but just do me this favor: Any needle you might feel is only aside. The main point and putting you down are not even incidental to one another -- I just like doing both, and it's easiest to do them simultaneously.

But that's no reason to spend half your post complaining or correcting me about it when there are more prevalent things to discuss.

The consistent case is, I do what the dictionary says. Why? Because it is the only thing we have for denotative meaning. If some people on this forum would like to take up the difficult task of establishing an accessible Typology dictionary, I wish them the best of luck.

You might do a search for the P and J muddling.

It's comprised almost entirely of splitting hairs on the humiliating linguistic over/misuse surrounding typology.

And of course, like the gold-old finisher, judging my accuracy on pre-suppostions about my character or motive is fallacious.

You may, with some experimentation, find that the greater portion of all knowledge is discovered by action on "pre-suppositions" (presumptions), be they accurate or not. I might not have you exactly figured out, but I am certain that you're more likely to invent something to 'correct' what I have to say simply because you don't like me than you are to address my post as it is.

The rest of the post is smoke (or perhaps more like steam). He is inaccurate in the assumption he has made about why or how I go about doing things. But the inaccuray of it is not as importat as the irrelevance of it. Practically speaking, it would take mutliple long posts to elaborate on everything about myself that he has commented or questioned, and none of it would be argumentatively pertinent.

Well, none of this was argumentatively pertinent either, but you went right ahead and posted it anyway.
We get it Poriferan: You have high standards.

Now the rest of my post wasn't smoke, it's just similarly relevant as your post. That is, it's not.
I'm just really getting sick of your ceaseless, and usually incorrect attempts to detract the value of anything I say.

Instead of sending you a private message, I decided to deal with it here. Context would really help a situation like this one.
I can see quite plainly that you're irrevocable hatred for me is more hap-hazard than a blindfold while driving.
You obviously don't want to be any more civil than I do, and LOLably, you're just as 'bad'.

I'll be taking congratulations for bringing the poriferan "down to my level" in the lobby. Or the graveyard, or something.

 

[LostInNerSpace]

You're just jealous I thought of it first.

Quit arguing with you're feelings -- both you and the poriferan.
It's like you two think you hate me hard enough, my points are ruined.

I have no idea what your talking about. What point? I don't hate anyone.

 

[Poki]

I think its a false dichotomy. Our brain works in parallel therefore we can think and feel at the same time. In order to feel we must process the event which requires us to think and once the thought process causes us to feel the thought process does not stop. Therefore we can think and feel at the same time so it is not mutually exclusive.