It is not so much that most of us aren't able to hold two conflicting ideas in our head at the same time, it's that we don't want to.
And we don't want to because holding two conflicting ideas causes cognitive dissonance. And cognitive dissonance is emotionally painful. So naturally we wish to avoid it unless we can see a greater reward.
I can't be certain if most people do or don't.
And it's the same with MBTI.
To those inside it makes sense and to those outside it is nonsense.
But very few are able to be inside and outside at the same time.
And in a sense you are right. I do try to be inside and outside at the same time. However the price I pay for this is cognitive dissonance and the accompanying emotional pain.
I feel that this exercise in holding multiple points of views becomes a true test of self (and, 'worth' whatever emotional pain/cognitive dissonance) when one forces self to choose WHAT topics to exercise this with. It's nothing formidable, nor pain-inducing, picking topics that are of TRIVIAL matter, without emotional/subjective investment in the first place. Some don't really care to be personally invested in MBTI, for them, holding two conflicting points of view is no great feat. Nor something that should be applauded.
Now, take for instance, say, I dunno, if you had strong beliefs about the horrors of...Islam. Exercise this cognitive dissonance, be
inside and
out. My hat will tip to you then. That's a testament to seeking truth in knowledge.
Let me give you an example:
Hint: separate yourself/myself/ourselves from discussions of ideas...and you'll fare much better.
....what makes you think I (personally) am opposed to the UDHR?
Because you are making classic arguments against it.
And this is not a trivial matter.
So either you are a game player or you are an Islamist.
The first is repulsive and the second is dangerous.
In grade 9, for an English class exercise on writing an argumentative essay, I handed in a paper supporting the Mafia because it promoted family values....what's your point?
It seems you are not fair dinkum.
And it seems to be chronic with you.
And you have no insight into your condition.
And you seem to think no one else has either.
All of these are signs of pathology.
But what is interesting is that you don't seem to understand that your behaviour invalidates what you say.
You are so blatant that I wonder -
Has no one pointed this out to you before?
Practice what you preach, maybe? You don't like this practice in others (and thus, dichotomize them with distaste), and counter that I cannot hold more than one point of view, and when I *do*, it makes me 'not fair' or pathological. But...lo and behold....when *you* hold it, for trivial matters, no less, it's a great and commendable feat of cognitive dissonance.
Or we can just write it off as another of your episodes of selective (triviality-based) cognitive dissonance....huh.
Razzle, dazzle me, Victor.
But only after you've broken all the mirrors,
While conversing with vanity,
And the smoke has dissipated.