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.