Overcompensated doubt: Jung and conspiracies & dogmatism

[Vendrah]

I thought of making this a post, but it would be off topic in many threads.

What I want to say is that some Jung Extraverted Thinking descriptions are actually a wider pattern that goes beyond the Te-doms.
Just in population speaking, about half of people are SJs or TJs, world-wide and in US as well, so this is might be just the reflection of SJs and TJs, but I have been seeing that some people that are not SJs or TJs sometimes behave like them.

I know this is sound confusing at first, but I haven't actually started explaining anything yet. So let me explain what the pattern I am speaking of is. I will explain it with the Jung quotes, so they hopefully will be more clear and less confusing. I am going to start on typology and jump to politics because I wanna show how they are still linking with each other, even though cognitive functions are going to be a 100 years old next year.

Basically, a Jung Te person is driven by one or a few 'intellectual' formulas - these formulas tells what is right or wrong, what is desirable or undesirable, they set the standards that define what is efficient (which is following the formula as closest as possible) and what is unefficient.

In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a [p. 435] pure type -- is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. This type of man gives the deciding voice-not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage-either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula.
By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the world, it also becomes a world-law whose realization must be achieved at all times and seasons, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for its own good, must his entourage also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong -- he is resisting the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must, under all circumstances, be realized; for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and, therefore, must also be generally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of man. This is not from any great love for his neighbour, but from a higher standpoint of justice and truth. Everything in his own nature that appears to invalidate this formula is mere imperfection, an accidental miss-fire, something to be eliminated on the next occasion, or, in the event of further failure, then clearly a sickness.

Some of you might be reading "Intellectual formula" and Te for the first time, or perhaps the first time you ever speak of it was through one of my posts. Although the 'Intellectual' formula is a central aspect of Te, many and almost all websites describing it does not ever mention it directly.

One of my points, specially for this thread, is that Jung was wrong into thinking that all Te formulas are intellectual. Jung based a lot of typology on his patients, and I always have an impression that all his Te-doms were all educated and all subscriber of science. Jung probably never had a Te-dom patient that denied science, so for him all Te formulas were intellectual. However, it is essential for people who wants to understand my point that: 1 Te formulas not always means literal formulas, but just formulas metaphorically - just like a person follows a series of cake recipes or like a person follows a series of laws; 2 Te formulas can be intellectual, but they can be dumb and anti-science instead of scientific, so my point is whenever I or Jung writes and you read 'intellectual formula', just take it as 'formula' or 'dogmatic formula'.

So, Jung do some talks, and we reach in this part:

Since feelings are the first to oppose and contradict [p. 438] the rigid intellectual formula, they are affected first this conscious inhibition, and upon them the most intense repression falls. No function can be entirely eliminated -- it can only be greatly distorted. In so far as feelings allow themselves to be arbitrarily shaped and subordinated, they have to support the intellectual conscious attitude and adapt themselves to its aims. Only to a certain degree, however, is this possible; a part of the feeling remains insubordinate, and therefore must be repressed. Should the repression succeed, it disappears from consciousness and proceeds to unfold a subconscious activity, which runs counter to conscious aims, even producing effects whose causation is a complete enigma to the individual. For example, conscious altruism, often of an extremely high order, may be crossed by a secret self-seeking, of which the individual is wholly unaware, and which impresses intrinsically unselfish actions with the stamp of selfishness. Purely ethical aims may lead the individual into critical situations, which sometimes have more than a semblance of being decided by quite other than ethical motives. There are guardians of public morals or voluntary rescue-workers who suddenly find themselves in deplorably compromising situations, or in dire need of rescue. Their resolve to save often leads them to employ means which only tend to precipitate what they most desire to avoid. There are extraverted idealists, whose desire to advance the salvation of man is so consuming that they will not shrink from any lying and dishonest means in the pursuit of their ideal. There are a few painful examples in science where investigators of the highest esteem, from a profound conviction of the truth and general validity of their formula, have not scrupled to falsify evidence in favour of their ideal. This is sanctioned by the formula; the end justifieth the means. Only an inferior feeling-function, operating seductively [p. 439] and unconsciously, could bring about such aberrations in otherwise reputable men.

So, basically, when the data and facts contradicts the intellectual formula, the Te-doms will deny the facts and some will go far enough to falsify evidence in favour of an ideal (the intellectual formula), because of their profound conviction of the truth and general validity of their formula.
The data and facts are important before the Te-dom subscribe the formula. Much post-Jung websites doesn't capture this and keeps affirming that all Te-doms are governed by data and facts all the time, that Te is about being governed and attentive by data and facts (driven by data and facts), and perhaps by self-report that may be partially true. But this simplistic view of them can never grasp how the fuck a Te-dom or a ISTJ can reject data and fact, because explaining the whole thing might be quite a challenge (and definitely less positive/encouraging and less attractive). Some people while typing, with the idea that Te is always driven by data and fact, even re-flag Te-doms and ISTJs as INTJs or ENTPs or ESTPs, because they can't see how a Te-dom or a ISTJ ignore data and facts - such things should only be possible for intuitives, so they might say that it is just a crazy Ni, a crazy idea of Ne, or a dumb Se, never Te.

After the subscription to the intellectual formula is made, the data and facts that aligns with the intellectual formula are the important ones, while the data and facts against it are discarded (and that is where fruitpicking starts).

Jung writes lots of stuff and then he hits dogmatism.

Thinking which in other respects may be altogether blameless becomes all the more subtly and prejudicially, affected, the more feelings are repressed. An intellectual standpoint, which, perhaps on account of its actual intrinsic value, might justifiably claim general recognition, undergoes a characteristic alteration through the influence of this unconscious personal sensitiveness; it becomes rigidly dogmatic. The personal self-assertion is transferred to the intellectual standpoint. Truth is no longer left to work her natural effect, but through an identification with the subject she is treated like a sensitive darling whom an evil-minded critic has wronged. The critic is demolished, if possible with personal invective, and no argument is too gross to be used against him. Truth must be trotted out, until finally it begins to dawn upon the public that it is not so much really a question of truth as of her personal procreator.

What Jung says here is the same as I said: Truth is no longer the facts, truth is what the formula says it is the truth. Many people that starts phrase like "This is the truth" actually repeats some sort of intellectual formula. And no argument is too gross (in other words, no argument is enough, it doesn't matter how elaborated, grounded, factual, etc.. is) to be used against the intellectual formula. When Jung says 'the critic is demolished', he just says what we on the 21th century: That there is a lack of critical thinking - there is no longer critical thinking, there is just a single mentality of: 'what formula says is truth, what goes against it is just a lie or a bunch of lies'. Period.

The dogmatic part here is actually tricky. Remember I had mentioned SJs, despite that being 'Si' and not Te? Well, what cognitive function is the opposite of dogmatism - the cognitive function that never attaches to dogmas, but instead jumps from dogma to dogma? That is not actually Fi (that is the Te opposite), but that is actually Ne instead. Ne jumpes from dogma to dogma because it reads the dogmas as possibilities, every intellectual formula is just a single possibility in the sea of possibilities, so Ne does opposition to subscribing to dogmatism, since that ceases the pursuit of possibilities. This little tricky thing (that Jung seems to never realized) actually changes the statistics: Suddenly, aspects of Te, like the being sticky to the rules (the rules are the intellectual formula), when 'dichotomized' (when Myers started to transform the cognitive functions into a dichotomy system), starts to relate to correlate with SJs instead of TJs. That is why some sources (a lot of them still limits Si to internal sensation) relates Si of being "for the rules" and sticky to the rules. You ever heard that SJs are 'guardians'? Ever wondered what they are guarding? Had you ever realized that most websites says they are guardians yet don't specify what they are guarding or is only vague about it? They are guarding a few intellectual formulas. Intellectual formulas can be literally religions (picture ESFJ), laws (picture ISTJ 1), etc... Except that in some few cases, SJs actually guard people depending on the enneagram (think of ISFJ 2 and ESFJ 2 - finally these are really guarding people). That is why some Te traits were 'stolen' by Si, and suddenly went SJ. I actually took a lot of time to finally understand where that data-related came from in terms of concepts, since I knew after reading Jung that some Te traits actually had showed up in post-Jungian (aka neoJungian) stuff as they were Si traits (neoJung stuff reformed Si - I don't blame them, I also have a hard time understanding Jung Si beyond past-experience orientation and internal body sensation).

Jung says lots of things again and we reach to this part, where finally there is the overcompensated doubt explanation:

The dogmatism of the intellectual standpoint, however, occasionally undergoes still further peculiar modifications from the unconscious admixture of unconscious personal feelings; these changes are less a question of feeling, in the stricter sense, than of contamination from other unconscious factors which become blended with the repressed feeling in the unconscious. Although reason itself offers proof, that every intellectual formula can be no more than [p. 441] a partial truth, and can never lay claim, therefore, to autocratic authority; in practice, the formula obtains so great an ascendancy that, beside it, every other standpoint and possibility recedes into the background. It replaces all the more general, less defined, hence the more modest and truthful, views of life. It even takes the place of that general view of life which we call religion. Thus the formula becomes a religion, although in essentials it has not the smallest connection with anything religious. Therewith it also gains the essentially religious character of absoluteness. It becomes, as it were, an intellectual superstition. But now all those psychological tendencies that suffer under its repression become grouped together in the unconscious, and form a counter-position, giving rise to paroxysms of doubt. As a defence against doubt, the conscious attitude grows fanatical. For fanaticism, after all, is merely overcompensated doubt. Ultimately this development leads to an exaggerated defence of the conscious position, and to the gradual formation of an absolutely antithetic unconscious position; for example, an extreme irrationality develops, in opposition to the conscious rationalism, or it becomes highly archaic and superstitious, in opposition to a conscious standpoint imbued with modern science. This fatal opposition is the source of those narrow-minded and ridiculous views, familiar to the historians of science, into which many praiseworthy pioneers have ultimately blundered. It not infrequently happens in a man of this type that the side of the unconscious becomes embodied in a woman.

Actually, this part is quite misunderstood because Jung keeps jumping from conscious and unconscious and even gets to parts of 'embodied woman' (which actually makes sound as if only man could be that way). But I can explain it without the subconscious part, even if that makes it a little bit less depth a little bit less psychological. Basically, the intellectual formula gains a status of religious absoluteness. However, as time goes and things change, the formula slowly disconnects itself with the reality - therefore, daily from daily it becomes a superstition. I think I actually skip an important part, so I refer to something that is actually a little bit backwards:

The fact that an intellectual formula never has been and never will be discovered which could embrace the [p. 437] abundant possibilities of life in a fitting expression must lead -- where such a formula is accepted -- to an inhibition, or total exclusion, of other highly important forms and activities of life. In the first place, all those vital forms dependent upon feeling will become repressed in such a type, as, for instance, aesthetic activities, taste, artistic sense, the art of friendship, etc. Irrational forms, such as religious experiences, passions and the like, are often obliterated even to the point of complete unconsciousness. These, conditionally quite important, forms of life have to support an existence that is largely unconscious. Doubtless there are exceptional men who are able to sacrifice their entire life to one definite formula; but for most of us a permanent life of such exclusiveness is impossible. Sooner or later -- in accordance with outer circumstances and inner gifts -- the forms of life repressed by the intellectual attitude become indirectly perceptible, through a gradual disturbance of the conscious conduct of life. Whenever disturbances of this kind reach a definite intensity, one speaks of a neurosis. In most cases, however, it does not go so far, because the individual instinctively allows himself some preventive extenuations of his formula, worded, of course, in a suitable and reasonable way. In this way a safety-valve is created.

So, the intellectual formula ages. It slowly starts to lose the changes of life, it starts to miss many important forms and activities of life. Capture this: Changes. Changes are sort of Ne department (remember that story that Si are averse to change? That is actually post-Jung stuff). But the Te-user in Jung, or the Si-user too in the post-Jung (and also SJs on MBTI), starts to lose ground due to formula aging. The formula starts to age sooo much that it starts to be disconnected to reality, so disconnected that slowly becomes an 'intellectual' superstition. The disconnection to reality combined with the fanaticism for the formula generates an opposition to reality (reality opposes the formula and the Te-dom opposes to whatever opposes the intellectual formula, so the Te-dom creates an opposition to reality), so "This fatal opposition is the source of those narrow-minded and ridiculous views, familiar to the historians of science, into which many praiseworthy pioneers have ultimately blundered".

Ultimately, a Te-dom becomes very attached to the formula, that generates a highly fanatic dogmatism. 'Wait, Vendrah, aren't you and Jung getting too far with this? I know some ENTJs that are not like this...'.. Tricky thing (blame Jung): Jung explains personality disorder related to cognitive functions (he calls them 'neurosis', although that is not actually Big 5 Neuroticism), so I already had hit the border of what the community call 'unhealthy' type. Second tricky thing: ENTJs, in MBTI side, get the N, that relates to Openness to Experience, that is anti-dogmatic; In Cognitive function speaking, some ENTJs might have Ne as auxiliary function (as far as I could note, that is very rare) or Ne and Ni simultaneously as auxiliary functions, and Ne counter-fights dogmatism; ESTJs, however, doesn't have that.
Third tricky thing: It is my opinion that what I explain here transcends Te-doms. I do see even INFPs and ENTPs doing this. ENFPs are the most shielded type in theory (remembers, that originally starts in Te and it is opposed by Ne), with INFPs and ENTPs in second, but I don't believe all of them are really 100% shielded.

But getting back to the explanation. A Te-dom becomes very attached to the formula, and that generates a highly fanatic dogmatism. What Jung says is that this high fanatic dogmatism generates an overcompensated doubt - he explains it like the overcompensated doubt comes from unconscious even though it is very visible. I can frame it in another way - the highly rigid dogmatism, with such rigidity, might never really survive in the real world, so it needs an overcompensated doubt - so the tactic becomes, like, "what is in the formula is to be followed with full faith and zero doubts" AND "what is outside the formula is to be put in doubt with as much as doubt as possible", so, inside the intellectual formula, the person becomes completely dogmatic: Zero doubts. Who speaks inside the formula speaks the truth, always. Who speaks outside the formula, instead, are always doubted, they are likely to be dead wrong, they are meant to be doubt. Those who speaks against the formula, are always lying. This is how overcompensated doubts works, so the person might show up with a skeptical presentation - suddenly, a critic.

Ok, but we really need examples. Please, give examples! Ok, I will, two examples.

The simplest example are flat earthers. These are great because they are simple people - their intellectual formula can be resumed in 3 words: Earth is flat.
It is known that our earlier ancestors - think about people from 1000-2000 years ago, did believe earth was flat. It did become as an ancient knowledge - although very few people did have theories that earth wasn't flat back then. This influences some earlier works, including some religions even might writing in ways that are read as if the earth was flat. The flat earth was a truth back then: It slowly started to be integrated as a formulaic truth: An intellectual formula, a dogmatic formula.

As many formulas, this one ages. Time passes, and slowly Russians and US people start sending people out of earth - and suddenly, they start to realize that earth is round (actually, that idea became before that). The intellectual formula did age, but it was still being passed. It started to lose connection from reality - what was seen as a fact 2000 years ago, becomes a superstition.

Yet, some are attached to this superstition. And here comes the overcompensated doubts: People who claims that earth might not be flat are meant to be doubted; Those who opposes this idea (the intellectual formula 'earth is flat') completely, they are lying. When flat earthers see videos of Nasa, they act full of doubts, skeptical. They appear as critic, completely skeptical. However, when flat earthers see videos of people who claims the earth is flat, that person is believed with no doubts. Their skepticism disappears, because their skepticism over Nasa was overcompensated doubt. Flat earthers might not realize that the real skepticism and doubt position/standpoint is alike agnoticism in religion: "The idea can be either true or false, which, presently the situation, is likely to be <true or false>", it is the "all I know is that I don't know", which is likely the highest ground of doubt. Flat earthers might not realize that they are not truly skeptical, because although they have a hard time believing in Nasa, yet they fully believe in some random guy on the you tube saying that earth is flat from a chair in a place that looks like either an office or a library, when there is some effort for the scenario. That is the nature of overcompensated doubt, and this is how the difference of a real full skeptical position.

Not all flat-earthers take this route; Some others already shoot the 'they are wrong' for the Nasa, without the skepticism, they jump straight to the point. These are easier to be explained. This is actually makes us go way back on the post, this: "By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it". This is simple: Nasa is wrong because they contradict the formula. The formula says what is right and wrong, what is true and what is false (like a computer program that says "=FALSE"). Nasa contradicts the formula, thus, Nasa is wrong, Nasa is telling lies (no longer reality, but the formula decides what is a lie and what is not a lie).

This is flat earthers explained, but this is waayyyy more wide, it doesn't happen only to the flat earth superstition. Most things that ends with 'isms' are intellectual formulas. Just the intellectual formula that I hate the most, neoliberalism, will be an example where I explain it quickly yet I have a very big thread debunking it here, with details, so you can check some of the details of what I explained there. Basically, neoliberalism (although some people love to change definitions) is a set of formulas that says that the market is an entity capable of distributing resources and everything with maximum efficiency because of the law of offer and demand (offer always meet demand), while the state is an entity incapable of distributing resources with such efficiency, thus, being less efficient than the market. Thus, that state is close to always bad and should only ensure the right of private property and omit itself from other activities - so the state is supposed to retreat itself from any other activities, like health, education, etc... Everything must be privatized, because what is private is what is efficient, and what is from the state is inefficient (remember, what dictates what is efficient is the formula); Everything that is private is right, the corporate are right and honest in their desires; Everything that is public (which denies the formula - public services, like public healthcare) is wrong, thus dishonest, full of corruption.

As time passes, the formula ages; First crash, 1929, that must be the state. Private sector can't be wrong. For every crisis, the state is always to blame for (that is what the formula tells you). And then, after some time, the neolibs starts to shows up with statistics that favours them, that proves they are right. Or, to be precise, the so called "Economic Freedom Index", used commonly as an argument for neoliberalism, where this index prove that the development countries have a high economic freedom whereas the poor ones doesn't. As I point on that thread, that index is actually rigged, it contains a lot of aspects not related to neoliberalism economic freedom (it has the corruption perception index inside of it, it has GDP Per Capita inside of it, etc... plus it disregards public corporations/companies); Countries with full public health and education sector, like the norse ones, such as Norway, suddenly appears with a high Economic Freedom Indexes: The neolibs suddenly disconnects from the reality, suddenly Norway and Norse, and even France, are countries full of economic freedom, they don't have much taxes (wait, they do!), the state is not much present there (wait, there are lots of public services), they don't have a strong Unions (actually, France do!) and etc... They start to ignore reality: What is real is what the formula says it is real. From the standpoint of people who created the index, that are actually aware of its issues, basically, this: "There are a few painful examples in science where investigators of the highest esteem, from a profound conviction of the truth and general validity of their formula, have not scrupled to falsify evidence in favour of their ideal."

There is one observation that has to be made here. Not all formulas are alike the flat earth formula, some of them are not actually rigid, some of them are oriented by the persons. On the neolib example, I had pointed that the neolibs definitions actually changes, and there are people behind the changes of definitions. Those who control the intellectual formula adhered to lots of people are the ones who have power; They have the power to decide and define, in the people eyes, what is right and wrong, what is true and what is not true. Those few who can shape the formula in their hands can control that, so they can control who is wrong, who is not, and that is how they direct their audience. I have no doubts: Most neolibs were against the quarantine; Not because neoliberalism had anything to say about any quarantine directly, but because people who influences neoliberalism are against it, the quarantine became a problem for them. So, suddenly, neolibs had a "quarantine is bad" addend to their formula; Whatever says the quarantine is wrong is to be fully trusted, whoever says its right is either lying or is meant to be met with full skepticism. Not all people against quarantine are neolibs, be careful about that! THe world runs on maannny intellectual formulas that might have overlaps and conflicts between each other, intellectual formulas with sets of rules; different than flat earthers, most intellectual formulas cannot be resumed into 3 words.

I must now do my final example. And a quite controversial one for this environment - .
The final example here is the intellectual formula of MBTI community: "The Stack", called by [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] and I adhere to that name too (that disappeared, hopefully he reads this one day), "The Grant Stack". Or "cognitive functions stack", it has many names.

The stack intellectual formula is the formula that says "The INFP stack is Fi-Ne-Si-Te", it draws a stack for every type; Some extensions of it also points shadow functions. The Grant Stack works with idea that every type has a fixed stack, designated by a list (that most people know, so I wont list all the stack of all types). People say 'study the functions, forget the letters' because 'the letters are superficial' and the rest you know.

Whatever a data appears to disagree with the Grant Stack, the data is meant to be wrong (here is the 'data says the formula is wrong, thus data is wrong' because the formulas dictates what is right and wrong). Lots of tests were developed - this includes [MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] TC test. And lots of them does not show the stack - INFPs with Fi-Ni, or even without being Fi-doms, no tertiary Si (actually that is super common), etc... What people says? Test sucks, test are wrong, test doesn't capture this or that, etc.. There is this one, too: "There are lots of mistypes".

My example haven't actually ended, I am actually just explaining in short the overall patterns of the Grant Stack. Example here will be something straight and specific. But I am sorry because I am going to bring some critique to some people of my friends list - I am sooo sorry, but this is an appeal for you to hear me more often (or, rather, detach from the Grant Stack). My specific example is this thread - Why Are So Many INFJs Type 4s?.

"I wonder why so many INFJs are Type 4s on the enneagram? Enneagram 4 seems very Fi."
First answer: "I'm gonna say that a lot of them are probably mistyped"
The majority of answers until me were that they were mistyped. Mistyped INFJs 4.
We know that INFJs are 'Ni-Fe' and usual conception connects type 4 with Fi. "E4 is about authenticity, finding missing pieces internally, etc. and Fi is centralized focus into internal value systems and authenticity". Problem is, INFJs does not have Fi (or have some sort of subconscious Fi). Thus, most INFJs can't be 4s because they don't have Fi, and, thus, a lot of INFJs 4 are mistyped, thus the data relating the INFJs to 4 is wrong. We are so much used to this type of the reasoning that we may not even realize that there is an intellectual formula behind it - the Grant Stack. The affirmation that INFJs are Ni-Fe comes from the Grant Stack intellectual formula. The affirmation that INFJs doesn't have Fi (or have some sort of subconscious Fi) does also comes from the Grant Stack. I did took these two set of premises as truths, because the Grant Stack says they are true. With this set of truths, I had put a 'thus', and then argued that most INFJs can't be 4s because that disagrees with the two facts (INFJs does not have Fi; INFJs are Ni-Fe), but these two facts does not comes from reality neither from any observation neither from data (and neither Jung's original theory - yup), these truths comes from an intellectual formula - the Grant Stack. So I had indirectly rejected data (INFJs 4 are mistyped) because that disagrees with the intellectual formula (The Grant Stack). Whatever the Grant Stack says is true, whatever does not fits its, it is wrong. Thus, INFJs 4s must be not be common, because that disagrees with the Grant Stack, thus, they must be mistyped.

People are so much into the Grant Stack dogma that they don't realize that if they suddenly forget the functions and goes back to dichotomy, the connection of INFJ and type 4 suddenly becomes bright. Type 4: "The Sensitive, Introspective Type: Expressive, Dramatic, Self-Absorbed, and Temperamental" "Fours are self-aware, sensitive, and reserved. They are emotionally honest, creative, and personal" (enneagram institute). People forget that INFJ, on the letters, means preference for Introversion, Intuition, Feeling and Judgment. So let me put Type 4 again: "The Sensitive [preference for feeling], Introspective Type [preference for Introversion and Intuition]: Expressive [ok, this is actually E], Dramatic [this relates to F], Self-Absorbed [Introversion again], and Temperamental [Neuroticism - out of MBTI scope]" "Fours are self-aware [more Introversion and Intuition], sensitive [Feeling again], and reserved [Introversion]. They are emotionally honest [ok, this is I and F combined, even though through gifts differing no one should ever relate types to honesty], creative [intuitive trait], and personal [out of MBTI scope, I think - no wait, there is one I-E facets called Intimate vs Something, which Intimate is on the I side - seek Intimiate connections instead of wide connections is an introversion trait on MBTI with facets, so this relates to introversion again]". Why INFJs are mostly 4s comes very natural in the letters (dichotomy), but people are sooo wired to look at INFJ and think in terms of the functions (and the functions is actually through the lens of Grant Stack) that they forget the dichotomy completely - and that is pretty much because the dogma of Grant Stack is very sticky in the community. I know lots of people on that thread are not really dogmatic - people from personality-database and some from PerC that are verrry dogmatic don't start with 'Im gonna say' 'probably', they jump directly to 'all these people are ignorant and are all mistyped', forget the 'probably'. The answer does not comes from 'the functions' naturally due to flaws on the intellectual formula of Grant Stack. I know which these are, but this post is too long and that already goes off my original explanation and I must go sleep, so I end up here.
[MENTION=40271]mancino[/MENTION] [MENTION=39780]noname3788[/MENTION]

PS: It is really difficult to live without the intellectual formulas, even I can't really do that. But this is really a wise advice - take careful with them.

 

[noname3788]

So what you have here is basically a theory of the origin and creation of dogmas? I try to sum up things first, just to make sure I understand the scope, and because I think that Te isn't the only relevant source (but more about that later):

Let's assume the starting point of the whole process: Some person with high Te is looking for a viable plan, a blueprint, for action, something that can be followed through and offers direction. So, Te engages it's supporting perceiving functions to gather information (Ne/Se) and to organize it (Ni/Si), to later decide upon said plan. The second step would obviously be the concrete implementation of said plan, or formula how you called it. Now, Te is also prone to using inductive logic rather than deductive, which means using data points to extrapolate patterns and using those patterns to create a new idea of how something works in general. The third part would be an identification with said general worldview (or, as you called it, intellectual formula) as a means to general success. The formula becomes their one-size-fits-all plan to solve every obstacle they come across, and that's even for a reason... because there was no data contradicting that pattern before. Going from that state into a dogma, I guess there are two important things happening: 1st the Te may not value observation and taking in new data anymore, since there's no need for it, the formula explains everything already. The Te becomes less cautious towards his own ideas and just takes the correctness of his own ways as granted. 2nd is an emotional involvement towards their own ways of success, the formula may become a part of that persons identity. Anything going against it may be viewed as a personal attack.

And that's basically where the dogmatic aspect comes into play. One blueprint for everything that accounts for any possibility (at least through their biased view), which is also seen as the only viable method to accomplish something. Also, if you want to falsify something, you'll always find reasons, however valid they might be, that can be woven into some kind of argumentation.

What I still don't fully get is the connection towards Si. In neojungian terms, Si would be something like a storage for views like this, but I don't think I'm doing SJ's a favor with that overly simplistic view, and according to your own argumentation, it's less applicable for SFJ's.

I like your interpreation of the 1st and 3rd example, about neoliberalism I honestly think it isn't that simple. But I save that for a different topic, and it requires much more time to get this done right.


Now for my own part of this. As mentioned at the beginning, I think it isn't the only source of dogmatism, and something that came to my mind is Fe doing something similar, just in different ways. Unlike Te however, it only became prevalent within the last ~20 years, vastly increased connectivity gives Fe a whole new array of influencing people and their opinions than it had before. I'm drifting away (and sadly don't have any Jung quotes to back it up, so it's merely the result of my own reasoning), so I should get started:
With Fe, the whole process is not founded on a logical foundation, but a moralistic one. There's some social issue (like discrimination, unequal chances for children, or smaller things like gender pay gap) that requires some strategy, a solution that may universally work. Analogous to the Te example, the Fe will look for viable plans, gather information and settle on something. And like in the Te example, they'll find success with it, not necessarily material success like for the Te, but in the form of a supporting community, or Fe's ideas being commonly cited and ackknowledged in mainstream media. Within such a community, it creates a social space consisting of members sharing a very similar opinion about said issue, commonly called an echo chamber, repeating and amplifying an opinion until it inevitably becomes a dogma by itself, and is seen as the only morally "correct" response to anything regarding that issue. Opposition is seen as outdated ideas hindering the progress of society, and members actually seek to silence and exterminate it completely.
What differentiates this Fe variant from the Te one is that instead of having it tied to an idea, a formula, it can also take the form of a person who speaks an "universal truth" that has to be believed. Some examples include Trumpism or QAnon, an example for the idea-focused variant would be cancel-culture or shitstorms.

PS: It is really difficult to live without the intellectual formulas, even I can't really do that. But this is really a wise advice - take careful with them.

Yes. It is omnipresent. I guess the best away around it is to be aware whether opinion you hold are a product of your own thinking, or taken from external sources, with "own thinking" being defined as something that went to an extensive internal evaluation process.

 

[Vendrah]

So what you have here is basically a theory of the origin and creation of dogmas? I try to sum up things first, just to make sure I understand the scope, and because I think that Te isn't the only relevant source (but more about that later):

Let's assume the starting point of the whole process: Some person with high Te is looking for a viable plan, a blueprint, for action, something that can be followed through and offers direction. So, Te engages it's supporting perceiving functions to gather information (Ne/Se) and to organize it (Ni/Si), to later decide upon said plan. The second step would obviously be the concrete implementation of said plan, or formula how you called it. Now, Te is also prone to using inductive logic rather than deductive, which means using data points to extrapolate patterns and using those patterns to create a new idea of how something works in general.

I would say, referring to bold, that extrapolating and using patterns is not on the Te department, its Ne or Ni (pattern -> intuition), and using these patterns to create a new idea might be Ne, or Ne combined with Ti. As you mentioned, I do agree that a lot of cognitive functions can be used while making the decision which formula subscribes to, although you have to realize that a lot of people takes the decision at the very beginning of their lives - like a teenager making a decision to stick to communist or neoliberalism for the rest of his/her life.

Ne can actually generate an intellectual formula and give birth to it as an idea, however it is on the Ne premise that you don't 'lock' yourself into a single possibility (otherwise that is not Ne anymore, but the opposite of it). I hold the idea that Te is mostly deductive instead of inductive, but to be honest, Te can be either and can change if the person takes absoluteness route (if it is against the formula, then it is wrong) or the overcompensated doubt (if the person highly doubts it). However, after the person sticks to the formula, they have a single formula who allows them (in their own heads) to do deductions (because of the certainty) - if what the formula says is wrong, then it is definitely wrong, that is deductive reasoning (even when it happens to be an improper or flawed or dumb deductive reasoning). In the overcompensated doubt, that changes to inductive reasoning, because if what is said contradicts the formula, then it is meant to be highly put in doubt and it is very unlikely to be correct - it becomes inductive reasoning. However, dogmatic people mostly based their life into certainties, not probabilities - that is why I say that they (and Te by associating Te with dogmatism) are more driven by deductive reasoning then inductive reasoning. Even if they go into the overcompensated doubt, they will switch to two postures: A deductive reasoning towards the formula/dogma and a negative inductive reasoning (a inductive reasoning that always says 'unlikely' even when it is 'likely'). Their deductive reasoning will be a lot prone to the quality of the formula - if the formula is of great quality, they will be right most of the times, so a good quality formula might mask a dumb user. Their inductive reasoning, on the other side, will be always of bad quality unless their scenario is super uncertain because they will answer 'unlikely' to almost everything (but if that happens, then their deductive reasoning will be flawed, so either of them will end up with a big flaw in one way or another), and when inductive reasoning hits the formula they will answer 'certain' instead of 'very likely'. I have a clear picture of inductive reasoning vs deductive a lot based on the tests - the inductive ones that I had done proposes you scenarios where you have to answer 'false', 'probably false', 'not enough information', 'equally true or false', 'probably true', 'definitely true', while deductive reasoning have scenarios where there is 'false', 'true', 'not enough information'.

And they are more willing to prefer deductive reasoning than inductive reasoning, but if they have competence to do so is another subject - and the quality of their formula also impacts highly on the amount of times they are going to be right or wrong. A lot of competency tests might put things that are out of the scope of the formula, so although a person might score high on these tests, if they adopt a low quality formula and if a test hits hard that formula they will have low scores. I believe that this is the explanation of why there are people that seems to be sooo well educated and even proficient in theory suddenly starts to 'lack critical thinking': Their scholarship stuff and the tests they made has nothing to do with the formulas they adopt, so they absent to use any bad intellectual formula, while for some specific subject they might adopt a very poor formula and suddenly a high reputable professional starts to make incredibly dumb affirmations and decisions (because of the very poor formula). Just for example, neoliberalism has nothing to say about how to solve a math problem, so a neoliberal might be proficient at solving math problems. However, when it reaches politics, the person forgets everything he knows about math problems and just applies neoliberalism instead - he might forget that math would say that you can't say that a country with 'high economic freedom' supposedly has low taxes and then put a country with high taxes as if it had 'high economic freedom', but neoliberalism formula says so because it needs to tell you this specific lie to keep the formula component 'more economic freedom and taxes always means more country development' intact - and that loops back on the part where Jung says that there are high reputable scientists who had falsified data to serve the formula they subscribe to.

The third part would be an identification with said general worldview (or, as you called it, intellectual formula) as a means to general success. The formula becomes their one-size-fits-all plan to solve every obstacle they come across, and that's even for a reason... because there was no data contradicting that pattern before. Going from that state into a dogma, I guess there are two important things happening: 1st the Te may not value observation and taking in new data anymore, since there's no need for it, the formula explains everything already. The Te becomes less cautious towards his own ideas and just takes the correctness of his own ways as granted. 2nd is an emotional involvement towards their own ways of success, the formula may become a part of that persons identity. Anything going against it may be viewed as a personal attack.

Yes it is that. But what I had put in bold is actually inferior Fi in action, but Jung keeps going backs and forth to high Te and inferior Fi on the description (sometimes he doesn't even separate these even though if he did it would be easier to understand, like if he did like the websites and put first 'primary Te' and then 'inferior Fi' description instead of doing both at the same time).

And that's basically where the dogmatic aspect comes into play. One blueprint for everything that accounts for any possibility (at least through their biased view), which is also seen as the only viable method to accomplish something. Also, if you want to falsify something, you'll always find reasons, however valid they might be, that can be woven into some kind of argumentation.

Yup.

What I still don't fully get is the connection towards Si. In neojungian terms, Si would be something like a storage for views like this, but I don't think I'm doing SJ's a favor with that overly simplistic view, and according to your own argumentation, it's less applicable for SFJ's.

The connection for the Jung Si and Si as cognitive function and this does not actually exists.
What does exist is relation with this and SJ.
You know, one thing that Reckful usually miss is that not always NJ is Ni (even INJ), NP is Ne, and etc... But specially, Si and SJ are usually equivalent but not always. SJ is the cross of Sensing + Judgment, but since we are speaking dichotomy, it can also be -Intuition -Perceiving, Sensing - Perceiving, -Intuition +Judgment, all of these at the same time. The weakness of that is that not always what is one side of dichotomy really means the absence of the other side. For example, if I assign 'talkative' to the E side and 'silent' to the I side, they are in fact opposites, because there is no 'talkative silent' people - that actually goes deductive, so if someone is silent, then someone is not talkative. However, if I assign 'excited' to the E side and 'intimate' to the I side, they are statistical opposites - you can have a person that is highly intimate and is always excitable, yet that is unlikely to happen because excited is related to Extraversion and intimate is related to introversion. That became now inductive reasoning, because a highly excited person is unlikely to be intimate (highly excited -> Extraversion -> Negative Introversion -> Negative in the intimate). Most T/F traits are actually opposites in inductive terms, and a lot of traits in general typology of dichotomy - that goes to Big 5 and MBTI - is inductive (they will never reach the 100% spot that way, even though a typology that hits a 100% would be quite superficial and I am not yet talking about change through time). But Jung does not notice that - if a person is high on Te, in Jung typology that auto-implies inferior Fi. What I had noticed on the tests is that a person that is high on Fi is usually low on Te, but not always, which means that if Te is high, the Fi is likely low, but by Jung theory (and partially Jung formula, even though Jung was not as dogmatic as some make him appear to be), if Te is high then Fi is by deduction low.

But just getting back at SJ, so just a two simple pictures:

'closure', 'decision', 'scheduled', 'plan', this is positive J - combined with negative intuition - 'not create', 'not ideas' [ideas with s, multiple ideas] - means that there is an intellectual formula behind, by deduction - if there is closure, there is decision, there is plan, there is a lack of creativity, there is lack of multiple ideas, these traits all at the same time, then there is an intellectual formula that brings the decisions, writes the plans, suppress the creativity (because it obstructs the alternative by dogmatism) and engage wars against multiple ideas because they are a threat to the formula. This actually generates a very interesting thing: By induction, the dogmatism people are likely to self-report that he is down to earth, oriented by facts, experience, past and present, etc... and that he lacks imagination, dreams, is not a big fan of complex theories, not creative, does no have an eye for the future. But that is by self-report, the MBTI does not have a 'other-report', a Nohari/Johari window. But a small part of Big 5 does. And this - look how interesting - creates another wave at Big 5: Low O have a tendency to self-report similarly: Conventional, not fan of ideas, not imaginative (->thus, down to earth), etc... But High O and Low E, reported mostly by the others, looks like this:
$pat42 = Pattern 4.2 INDISCRETE TYPE (High E, Low O)
Indiscreet Types are extraverts who impulsively talk and boast without knowing what they are talking about. They are pompous and full of bluster. Talkativeness and ignorance is an unfortunate combination not tolerated well by others. Indiscreet types are described as unlearned, unlettered, anxious, quitting, rule-avoiding, and self-centered.

Looks like that because the Experimental 40 big 5 types are a lot biased through what others report, not self-report (a person would never self-report that way). Actually, that is my inductive, what is deductive from the other description is that the other-reports have weights - because it says 'are described as'.

Yup, that is me saying 'test have inaccuracies', but I don't think that is because of any dogmatism that I am unaware of.

But that is just the self-report (Jung is meant to go beyond self-report, while MBTI keeps with the self-report - If Jung patient says 'I am A', Jung does not necessarily says 'patient is A'; If MBTI patient, that is actually a costumer, says 'I am A', then it is unethical to say otherwise under the MBTI 'ethical' code). That is where the SJ and dogmatism comes from Te, when you bring it to MBTI, it actually captured better than TJ because the lack of creativity and lack of multiple ideas is an essential aspect, while you can't bring that from T/F:

There is no aspect of T/F that has anything to say about suppressing multiple ideas, which mostly means Openness to ideas (multiple ideas implies multiple formulas, while Te is dogmatic to a single formula). So, although I was long, that is where the relation of this and Si (actually, SJ) comes from. And there is an error in Jung: In this case, his Te description has characteristics that relates to inferior Ne (the dogmatism from Ne relates by deduction to a closure of ideas that by deduction means a closure of possibilities, and a closure of possibilities goes to inferior Ne, instead of inferior Fi), even though in the statistics of societies that still goes back to Fi mostly instead of Ne, but not in a personal level.

Now for my own part of this. As mentioned at the beginning, I think it isn't the only source of dogmatism, and something that came to my mind is Fe doing something similar, just in different ways. Unlike Te however, it only became prevalent within the last ~20 years, vastly increased connectivity gives Fe a whole new array of influencing people and their opinions than it had before. I'm drifting away (and sadly don't have any Jung quotes to back it up, so it's merely the result of my own reasoning), so I should get started:
With Fe, the whole process is not founded on a logical foundation, but a moralistic one. There's some social issue (like discrimination, unequal chances for children, or smaller things like gender pay gap) that requires some strategy, a solution that may universally work. Analogous to the Te example, the Fe will look for viable plans, gather information and settle on something. And like in the Te example, they'll find success with it, not necessarily material success like for the Te, but in the form of a supporting community, or Fe's ideas being commonly cited and ackknowledged in mainstream media. Within such a community, it creates a social space consisting of members sharing a very similar opinion about said issue, commonly called an echo chamber, repeating and amplifying an opinion until it inevitably becomes a dogma by itself, and is seen as the only morally "correct" response to anything regarding that issue. Opposition is seen as outdated ideas hindering the progress of society, and members actually seek to silence and exterminate it completely.

You forgot to read about Jung Fe, huh?
What you describe has nothing to do with the original Jung Fe, it cames from MBTI FJ actually, not Fe written by Jung. Lots of websites had attached FJ traits to Jung Fe (by induction, they have some cluster tendencies). Just re-look at the images, what you describe is basically 'values', 'people oriented', combined with 'plan', 'closure', 'decision', 'control'. Ok, I actually know that these images are not official and they had made a few contradictions (like 'people oriented' is related to E as well) but they are good quick representatives. Yet, Jung Fe, as far as I remember since I don't memorize the details, is related to an example of a woman who adjusts her feelings according to her environment and objectives - the woman who seeks and love the 'suitable man'. I don't even remember if it speaks of values - as far as I remember, values on the Feeling side were either very secondary to Jung or were not in Jung, Fe and Fi, even though for Fi Jung mentioned something like 'primordial ideas/feelings' and that has to do with the 'universal ideas' (these are more Fi than Fe actually, but that is another quite complicated subject), although don't forget that universal idea has double-meaning: Most intellectual formula does present themselves as an universal idea, although not all of them.

What differentiates this Fe variant from the Te one is that instead of having it tied to an idea, a formula, it can also take the form of a person who speaks an "universal truth" that has to be believed. Some examples include Trumpism or QAnon, an example for the idea-focused variant would be cancel-culture or shitstorms.

Well, I agree with you partially. As I said, I believe this pattern extends to almost everyone, because I had seen lots of self-typed INFPs using the Grant Stack on a very dogmatic Te fashion yet they are supposed to have inferior Te, and people carrying religion dogmatism does have correlations with FJ mostly while they are also formulaic by conception. Yet I would not say that Trumpism comes from Fe (QAnon I don't what that is). Cancel-culture as Fe? Hmm... I am not sure. You know, know you are starting to hit dangerous dark territories that has to do with connection Te with enneagram 8, a subject that I don't like to put on any of my public posts. The intellectual formula can have a 'spready' component - it might have a component of it that says 'this must spread the to the whole world', and a cancel-culture is just a way to negate and suppress what is against the formula by any means available. Although I do believe that liars should be cancelled, but you have to remember that for some people what is a lie or not is not decided by facts, observations, statistics, not even definitions or axioms, but rather by an intellectual formula - and this is not the kind of lie I am talking about when I say that liars should be cancelled. Another thing to take into account, regardless Trump type, Trump does have a high control with what is right and wrong, false or true, to Trump supporters, not fully (if he ever decides that he is gay then he loses lots of his supporters because he hit the intellectual formula that he used to get power that has an anti-gay component), and the fact that he is exploring it just means he is not a Fi-dom and not a Ne-dom (ok, actually a very dishonest Ne-dom can use that even though the disonest Ne-dom would hate to have that used against self).

I use the term intellectual formula just because I am mirroring jung, as I said earlier, dogmatic formula, dogmatic paradigm are alternative traits and the intellectual formula might be actually anti-intellectual, Jung has probably not noticed that, probably because his Te-doms patients were all highly educated.

 

[Jaguar]

Politics, History, Current Events. Am I in that forum? Clearly not.

 

[Vendrah]

Politics, History, Current Events. Am I in that forum? Clearly not.

This could belong to Politics, Philosophy or Typology.
However, mentioning way too much neoliberalism inside the typology would be problematic.
Mentioned typology on the politics forum, not so much.

 

[mancino]

Nice point, [MENTION=32874]Vendrah[/MENTION], one I could agree on for the most part.
Narrow-mindedness is indeed a cancer. Also dogmatism and fanaticism are.

However, don't estimate the power of a intellectual formula to do good. You are so Ne in your view that you don't see the utility of standardization. You have to have procedure, recipes, laws. Are they rigid? Yes, but they make cooperation among humans more feasible. Working together in a kitchen, for example. Or any job, really: the more routinized, the more efficient, the better - to some degree.

The moment you fix it, it starts ageing, so eventually it will become corrupt and decay. Like everything. But you can't live a life reinventing the wheel all the time. The opposite of an intellectual dogma it's not flexibility, it's pure potential. All ideas spinning and no doing. That's not good either.

This view on Te connects with unhealthy Enneagram 8 and 1 - I can't help but mention it - but they have virtues as well.
You have to reconcile yourself with the Warrior and the Father archetype. Not all authorities and structures and organization are evil and tyrannical and corrupt. Chaos is an ugly beast as well. You WANT some order, some predictability. It's nice to have a home, a job, a steady income, health care, low crime and so on. Even an hunter-gatherer tribe organizes itself to some degree. Even chimps. It's embedded in us. You can't escape it.

You can't explore all the time. We think we can explore all the time only because we have a full fridge to go to whenever we feel hungry.
In real life, as a community, eventually, you have to pick a "formula" and IMPLEMENT it. Then it will become old, then you will explore again, upgrade it and the cycle will go round again. If you are into software, or any industrial production in general, it's always like this.
Maybe you would feel better in a purely exploration-oriented role, which is very fine. But we also need some more "rigid" people who are able to implement and iterate. They can be healthy or corrupt, as any people.

Doing stuff and being goal-oriented are not sins per se.

 

[Vendrah]

Nice point, [MENTION=32874]Vendrah[/MENTION], one I could agree on for the most part.
Narrow-mindedness is indeed a cancer. Also dogmatism and fanaticism are.

However, don't estimate the power of a intellectual formula to do good. You are so Ne in your view that you don't see the utility of standardization. You have to have procedure, recipes, laws. Are they rigid? Yes, but they make cooperation among humans more feasible. Working together in a kitchen, for example. Or any job, really: the more routinized, the more efficient, the better - to some degree.

The moment you fix it, it starts ageing, so eventually it will become corrupt and decay. Like everything. But you can't live a life reinventing the wheel all the time. The opposite of an intellectual dogma it's not flexibility, it's pure potential. All ideas spinning and no doing. That's not good either.

This view on Te connects with unhealthy Enneagram 8 and 1 - I can't help but mention it - but they have virtues as well.
You have to reconcile yourself with the Warrior and the Father archetype. Not all authorities and structures and organization are evil and tyrannical and corrupt. Chaos is an ugly beast as well. You WANT some order, some predictability. It's nice to have a home, a job, a steady income, health care, low crime and so on. Even an hunter-gatherer tribe organizes itself to some degree. Even chimps. It's embedded in us. You can't escape it.

You can't explore all the time. We think we can explore all the time only because we have a full fridge to go to whenever we feel hungry.
In real life, as a community, eventually, you have to pick a "formula" and IMPLEMENT it. Then it will become old, then you will explore again, upgrade it and the cycle will go round again. If you are into software, or any industrial production in general, it's always like this.
Maybe you would feel better in a purely exploration-oriented role, which is very fine. But we also need some more "rigid" people who are able to implement and iterate. They can be healthy or corrupt, as any people.

Doing stuff and being goal-oriented are not sins per se.

Mancino, this is a thread, not a private message! It wasn't actually a rant, I really explained things like flat-earthers, kinds of fanaticism, and etc.. in terms of Jung Te, and Jung Te is quite on par. Flat-earthers are quite understandable now, at least for me XD! I just wrote too much to give lots of examples, but that includes neoliberalism aspects, some Trump fanaticism, extreme right or extreme left, etc... Communism is a formula too.

I did not mention or focused on exaggerated behaviour of J and conscientiousness here!
The archetype the warrior doesn't have much to do with this thread... You can only link these of what I had mentioned with The Ruler and The Father, but archetypes are sort of off-topic for the thread XD.

 

[mancino]

Mancino, this is a thread, not a private message! It wasn't actually a rant, I really explained things like flat-earthers, kinds of fanaticism, and etc.. in terms of Jung Te, and Jung Te is quite on par.

I know, buddy, I know!

Nice point, @Vendrah, one I could agree on for the most part.
Narrow-mindedness is indeed a cancer. Also dogmatism and fanaticism are.

As I said, I agree with you. That was my first reaction: I can't stand narrow-minded people, the ones who think they have it all figured out, the ones who take external dogma for granted and repeat it as if it was true just because somebody said it - because they don't think - or because they think but don't trust their own thinking, or, the worst ones, even if they think and they know there's something wrong in the dogma, they willfully choose to ignore their thinking. There's no one more deaf than the one who doesn't want to hear, so we say in Italian.

But still.

You know, my second reaction was: you can't say that intellectual formulas are bad. That is actually a formula in itself!
Formulas have their own utility. I could argue that human life is about getting your formulas straight. You have to do stuff, and you can't just improvise o invent a new solution each and every time for everything. It's exhausting.

Like, your morning routine. Imagine a new job, or a new school. For the first day, you set your alarm clock quite early, because you don't know how long it takes to get there plus having breakfast, taking a shower and so on. Day by day, you optimize, and find a comfortable routine: one that lets you be there on time, sleep enough and without stressing too much. If you are like me, you live room for a little bit of variety, for the sake of it: a different route, a different breakfast menu, and so on. But still, do you really want to devote your mental energy to this stuff? Not really, uh?

The same for everything, up to the big dilemmas. Take this: thou shalt not kill. An intellectual formula. Actually a moral one, but it is still a dogma, a formula. Is it good? That is the question. If it solves a problem in an efficient way, and morally, then it's good! Of course from time to time you can question it, and all dogmas are there to be questioned IMHO, but not all the time. If you question everything, you don't act any more.
Can you kill somebody? Well, in some very unlikely occasions, I would, for example to save my daughter from being raped - just the thought makes me sick, this wild imagination of mine...

Archetypes are relevant because they make us remember that they are inside us, it's the human condition, you will NEVER get rid of them., They tend to formulaic behavior, but they are neutral, not good or evil. That is your choice: between good and evil.

Of course some dogmas are just wrong. Like, for example, saying that all the problems are because of an "inferior race" that invaded us. It took humanity to perpetrate the worst crime in history.

But most of the time, we run on intellectual formulas. Drive a car, Raise a child, Be a good person. All moral precepts are intellectual formulas. Each has his or her own, and applies it. Then you get the exception, and have to reevaluate.

In CogFuncSpeak, this is not Te, it's just Judging: Te, Ti, Fe and Fi. Newton's laws of motion are intellectual formulas - and they are wrong! But a very useful simplification indeed, you just have to use them where and when they apply and not for quantum physics or black holes, for example. The Golden Rule: "The principle of treating others as you want to be treated", is also an intellectual formula, but a very good one, so good that many religions and cultures have reached it independently. You could argue that maybe it's coded in our DNA, who knows. Jung would say it is in our collective unconscious. Like that murder is wrong. It brings havoc to people who do it. Just read Crime and punishment, a masterpiece about wrongdoing.

I really believe that the "intellectual formula" is the way our mind works. Like with language: I say "chair" and you picture an abstraction of it, similar to mine but not quite, not even related to any physical chair. It's a formula, it's simplified, but it works, up to a point. The same with everything else.

So, the problem is not with the formulas themselves - they are inevitable. The question is if they work, that is, if they make life better - a moral judgment. Is believing that the Earth is flat good? Not really, although I can think of more harmful illusions. One thing is to post some weird pictures on Instagram about it, another one would be to go around killing astronomers or astronauts.
Is believing in the Grant stack good? Well, it's useful, nice and easy, although inherently wrong. But I would not condemn it, it has driven a lot of people into typology, which is a good thing. Sometimes you need an accessible theory - although partial and skewed - to reach to people.
Is believing that everybody is created equal good? In principle, yes, but if you look at history, it has led to wildly disparate results, some very, very bad. I could go on forever, but you get my point.

Thus, I end with the archetypes again: rules - the Ruler - and principles - the Father - are there to guide you actions against difficulties - the Warrior - and they are good insofar they help you do good. We need good rules and principles, they are the foundation of community and cooperation. We need something to believe in. Otherwise this is just a meaningless time that slips away pondering everything and doing nothing, which leads to apathy and nihilism. Which is bad in itself.

That is not to say that any formula is better than no formula: some are way worse. But you need some. They will be partial, but useful. And when they don't work anymore, you refine them and move forward.

 

[Vendrah]

I know, buddy, I know!



As I said, I agree with you. That was my first reaction: I can't stand narrow-minded people, the ones who think they have it all figured out, the ones who take external dogma for granted and repeat it as if it was true just because somebody said it - because they don't think - or because they think but don't trust their own thinking, or, the worst ones, even if they think and they know there's something wrong in the dogma, they willfully choose to ignore their thinking. There's no one more deaf than the one who doesn't want to hear, so we say in Italian.

But still.

You know, my second reaction was: you can't say that intellectual formulas are bad. That is actually a formula in itself!
Formulas have their own utility. I could argue that human life is about getting your formulas straight. You have to do stuff, and you can't just improvise o invent a new solution each and every time for everything. It's exhausting.

Like, your morning routine. Imagine a new job, or a new school. For the first day, you set your alarm clock quite early, because you don't know how long it takes to get there plus having breakfast, taking a shower and so on. Day by day, you optimize, and find a comfortable routine: one that lets you be there on time, sleep enough and without stressing too much. If you are like me, you live room for a little bit of variety, for the sake of it: a different route, a different breakfast menu, and so on. But still, do you really want to devote your mental energy to this stuff? Not really, uh?

The same for everything, up to the big dilemmas. Take this: thou shalt not kill. An intellectual formula. Actually a moral one, but it is still a dogma, a formula. Is it good? That is the question. If it solves a problem in an efficient way, and morally, then it's good! Of course from time to time you can question it, and all dogmas are there to be questioned IMHO, but not all the time. If you question everything, you don't act any more.
Can you kill somebody? Well, in some very unlikely occasions, I would, for example to save my daughter from being raped - just the thought makes me sick, this wild imagination of mine...

Archetypes are relevant because they make us remember that they are inside us, it's the human condition, you will NEVER get rid of them., They tend to formulaic behavior, but they are neutral, not good or evil. That is your choice: between good and evil.

Of course some dogmas are just wrong. Like, for example, saying that all the problems are because of an "inferior race" that invaded us. It took humanity to perpetrate the worst crime in history.

But most of the time, we run on intellectual formulas. Drive a car, Raise a child, Be a good person. All moral precepts are intellectual formulas. Each has his or her own, and applies it. Then you get the exception, and have to reevaluate.

In CogFuncSpeak, this is not Te, it's just Judging: Te, Ti, Fe and Fi. Newton's laws of motion are intellectual formulas - and they are wrong! But a very useful simplification indeed, you just have to use them where and when they apply and not for quantum physics or black holes, for example. The Golden Rule: "The principle of treating others as you want to be treated", is also an intellectual formula, but a very good one, so good that many religions and cultures have reached it independently. You could argue that maybe it's coded in our DNA, who knows. Jung would say it is in our collective unconscious. Like that murder is wrong. It brings havoc to people who do it. Just read Crime and punishment, a masterpiece about wrongdoing.

I really believe that the "intellectual formula" is the way our mind works. Like with language: I say "chair" and you picture an abstraction of it, similar to mine but not quite, not even related to any physical chair. It's a formula, it's simplified, but it works, up to a point. The same with everything else.

So, the problem is not with the formulas themselves - they are inevitable. The question is if they work, that is, if they make life better - a moral judgment. Is believing that the Earth is flat good? Not really, although I can think of more harmful illusions. One thing is to post some weird pictures on Instagram about it, another one would be to go around killing astronomers or astronauts.
Is believing in the Grant stack good? Well, it's useful, nice and easy, although inherently wrong. But I would not condemn it, it has driven a lot of people into typology, which is a good thing. Sometimes you need an accessible theory - although partial and skewed - to reach to people.
Is believing that everybody is created equal good? In principle, yes, but if you look at history, it has led to wildly disparate results, some very, very bad. I could go on forever, but you get my point.

Thus, I end with the archetypes again: rules - the Ruler - and principles - the Father - are there to guide you actions against difficulties - the Warrior - and they are good insofar they help you do good. We need good rules and principles, they are the foundation of community and cooperation. We need something to believe in. Otherwise this is just a meaningless time that slips away pondering everything and doing nothing, which leads to apathy and nihilism. Which is bad in itself.

That is not to say that any formula is better than no formula: some are way worse. But you need some. They will be partial, but useful. And when they don't work anymore, you refine them and move forward.

I think that you might be exaggerating or making sound like everything is intellectual formula, which is not really true.. As I had noticed, although my programming skills are super limited, computer can't run without any intellectual formulas, computer programming seems to be tied with intellectual formulas even on machine learning - and, of course, they can use complex formulas, but they are still tied to them. The funny thing is that the programmer seems to need a lot of Ti to prevent the computers from glitching. I think that we can say that there cannot be computers and programs without an intellectual formula - any program is an intellectual formula. But I dare to say that the main difference of the human mind is that it can exceed any sort of formula - human mind is capable of making decisions when conditions are out of the program scope, out of the intellectual formula scope.

I also need to say that, at least in Jungian terms, patterns are not intellectual formulas. Intellectual formula is a closed recipe to what a chair is - something like 'a wood or metal piece with an horizontal square and 4 columns or a set of wheels'. This is an intellectual formula for the chair, which describes a lot of chairs, but not all the chairs - and with time it has a tendency to describe even less chairs, until it won't describe a lot of chairs. The pattern of what we visualize as a chair is something different, it is not exactly a formula.

The other point is that switching intellectual formulas lots of times are no longer a Te point - a Te point is about sticking to an intellectual formula, and the 'Te neurosis' is like sticking the formula for way too long.

A good point in Jung point in here, at least in my own opinion, is that people starts to switch facts and data with the intellectual formula instead. Actually, I am partially a data-driven person, and that made me various people to associate me with Te, but after reading Jung Te, that is not really much Te-ish except that Te people only use data and facts at the beginning until they start confusing data and facts for the formula. In the end, data had made me go against Grant Stack (more Reckful actually, but Reckful basically convinced me using... Data hahahha), but after sometime I even started to spot flaws on the dichotomy MBTI as well. I don't think that my 'procedure' of starting to cut off parts of theories is really an intellectual formulas per se, because I am actually cutting intellectual formulas . But, anyway, getting back to what I was saying, the thing here is that people starts to distort facts and data, and I am hitting a lot of sensors who self-report to be driven by data and facts, while what they understand by what is facts and what is data is just what is sanctioned by the few formulas they follow - and what is not is not understood as a fact or data.

Archetypes are relevant because they make us remember that they are inside us, it's the human condition, you will NEVER get rid of them., They tend to formulaic behavior, but they are neutral, not good or evil. That is your choice: between good and evil.

There is the archetype of the demon that is not neutral on the good vs evil spectrum. The Demon, as far as I remember, is an archetype that appears in multiple religions - What is Lucifer role on the Bible have a figure that plays a similar role in other religions - like Hades in Greek. There is the Demon archetype that it is evil so archetypes are not really neutral - some might be.
Also, archetype is not really a well accepted theory, so saying that we can't get rid of any archetype is not actually true, even though inside Jung's theory that is correct in terms, because we do not 'carry' all archetypes all the time. If we stop to think about it, it is impossible to carry all archetypes at the same time, because some archetypes are repulsive to each other, even though that is not true to the main ones.

In CogFuncSpeak, this is not Te, it's just Judging: Te, Ti, Fe and Fi. Newton's laws of motion are intellectual formulas - and they are wrong! But a very useful simplification indeed, you just have to use them where and when they apply and not for quantum physics or black holes, for example. The Golden Rule: "The principle of treating others as you want to be treated", is also an intellectual formula, but a very good one, so good that many religions and cultures have reached it independently. You could argue that maybe it's coded in our DNA, who knows. Jung would say it is in our collective unconscious. Like that murder is wrong. It brings havoc to people who do it. Just read Crime and punishment, a masterpiece about wrongdoing.

Newton's laws are a great example of a good intellectual formula (and it is actually intellectual), but the point that it has its limitations, it did age - all overlaps with my first point and Jung points.
When you started with things that are 'coded in our DNA', then you are no longer on the Te department and it is no longer formulaic - whenever you try to express these things as rules you start to have a loss on meaning. It hits various cognitive functions, but 'coded in DNA' hits Fi and Ni.
Fi primordial values, like equality, lose some information and meaning when they become a formula - like the equality in communism, it can get non-Fiish pretty quickly. Fi values could be 'DNA coded'.
Ni is more interesting and more related, because it relates to Genetic Memory, that relates to Jung Ni and collective unconscious, yet Genetic Memory is no longer an intellectual formula. But Genetic Memory is not backed up by enough evidence.

Not all moral and ethics are formulaic, we just live on a world where lots of them are - actually, that is how you distinguish a Fi sort of morality vs a Te/Si 1 sort of morality. Fi morality is heavily based on moral sentimentalism.

Sorry if I appear a little bit harsh...

 

[mancino]

I think we are on the same page here, actually. It's just semantics, and my reluctance to use Cognitive Functions as a lens to see the world.

Just a minor side note: the Demon is not a Jungian archetype. You are right that the Demon is "negative", although in a more Taoist-Zen view, good and evil are intermingled, like in the Yin-Yang symbol.

Jung had different view on archetypes at different times.

You could have four:

Self
Persona
Anima-us
Shadow

Or you could have twelve:

Ruler
Creator/Artist
Sage
Innocent
Explorer
Rebel
Hero
Wizard
Jester
Everyman
Lover
Caregiver

These are the ones I was referring to. In both cases, no negative archetype, although each of them can be very negative, and some in the way you described in the OP. But that doesn't make the archetype bad. Hence, as I said, we can't label as "bad" a cognitive perspective, it really depends. But then, I believe we are just meaning the same thing, and it's all semantics, as I said.

Personality is a difficult subject to talk about!

 

[mancino]

Upon reading further about the subject, it appears that the Shadow has indeed mostly negative connotations, but still one can't just "get rid of it". It's more like chaos, lack of morality and instinctual behavior, a-moral maybe.

 

[Vendrah]

I think we are on the same page here, actually. It's just semantics, and my reluctance to use Cognitive Functions as a lens to see the world.

Just a minor side note: the Demon is not a Jungian archetype. You are right that the Demon is "negative", although in a more Taoist-Zen view, good and evil are intermingled, like in the Yin-Yang symbol.

Jung had different view on archetypes at different times.

You could have four:

Self
Persona
Anima-us
Shadow

Or you could have twelve:

Ruler
Creator/Artist
Sage
Innocent
Explorer
Rebel
Hero
Wizard
Jester
Everyman
Lover
Caregiver

These are the ones I was referring to. In both cases, no negative archetype, although each of them can be very negative, and some in the way you described in the OP. But that doesn't make the archetype bad. Hence, as I said, we can't label as "bad" a cognitive perspective, it really depends. But then, I believe we are just meaning the same thing, and it's all semantics, as I said.

Personality is a difficult subject to talk about!

I never read Jung directly on archetypes, and I don't have a clear picture about which are originals or nots or their original definitions.
The 12 you listed are the brand archetypes, they were modified to fit a brand purpose.

It depends on which archetypes you mention of, some are indeed neutral, others not so much.

 

[mancino]

About Persona and Shadow in Jung, this is a great explanation of their balance in the Self, by a psychologist I wholeheartedly recommend: Jordan B. Peterson

This is a good answer to the problem of the OP: how do you fight dogmatism? By being able to say NO, by having the power of the Shadow tamed into your being, to do Good, and not just left behind in the hands of Evil.

 

[Vendrah]

About Persona and Shadow in Jung, this is a great explanation of their balance in the Self, by a psychologist I wholeheartedly recommend: Jordan B. Peterson

This is a good answer to the problem of the OP: how do you fight dogmatism? By being able to say NO, by having the power of the Shadow tamed into your being, to do Good, and not just left behind in the hands of Evil.

I don't think he really answers to this subject on that video at all and that the being able to say No is your own suggestion.

 

[mancino]

Well, not to be nitpicking with you, but the thread is about "Jung and conspiracies and dogmatism". You addressed very well the problem from an analytical point of view. I just expanded on the practical issue of what to do about it.
In the face of a fringe dogmatic movement (e.g. flat earthers) you just shrug, not a big fuss. But what if they are an increasing minority, threatening to become a majority? IMHO, as explained in the video, you integrate the Shadow in you, otherwise you leave its power in the hand of the dogmatics. And the Shadow will eat you eventually. It happened many, many times in history. It happens every day.
The explanation in the video is so Jungian it screamed to be put here. It is very relevant to the discussion. You can discard my advice, but not Jung's archetypes here.

 

[mancino]

Actually, re-reading the OP, the reference to the unconscious becomes more and more relevant. Why would somebody believe in something that it's not true?

Well, this can shed light on the answer:
Solomon Asch - Conformity Experiment.
Asch Conformity Experiment | Simply Psychology

Why did the participants conform so readily? When they were interviewed after the experiment, most of them said that they did not really believe their conforming answers, but had gone along with the group for fear of being ridiculed or thought "peculiar.

A few of them said that they really did believe the group's answers were correct.

Apparently, people conform for two main reasons: because they want to fit in with the group (normative influence) and because they believe the group is better informed than they are (informational influence).

That is consistent with it being Te (judgment according to external values, in this case, the group). However, the explanation could easily be that it comes from the need to belong that's deeply rooted in the Collective Unconscious.

 

[Vendrah]

Well, not to be nitpicking with you, but the thread is about "Jung and conspiracies and dogmatism". You addressed very well the problem from an analytical point of view. I just expanded on the practical issue of what to do about it.
And the Shadow will eat you eventually. It happened many, many times in history. It happens every day.
The explanation in the video is so Jungian it screamed to be put here. It is very relevant to the discussion. You can discard my advice, but not Jung's archetypes here.

Well, it wasn't the idea to discuss the video, that is why I avoid it.
Not only that guy has some weird ideology - he is almost screaming like "all 'weaks' are bad", did an implicit tribute to powerful people - but still, the notion of 'shadow' is actually vague and the critics related to this guy works does relate to vagueness.

What do you think the shadow is here, on this context? As far as I know, the shadow would relate to inferior Fi, and it is from that that might come explosive episodes of anger, but also it is where Jung relates to a fail in honesty to fill the intellectual formula.

In the face of a fringe dogmatic movement (e.g. flat earthers) you just shrug, not a big fuss. But what if they are an increasing minority, threatening to become a majority? IMHO, as explained in the video, you integrate the Shadow in you, otherwise you leave its power in the hand of the dogmatics.

I am shrugging? What am i supposed to do?

I hope you don't mind my intentionally facetious comment earlier, but I said it to make a particular point that such an ideal is much easier said than done. It is an unrealistic pressure to place on a single individual facing overwhelmingly corrupt power structures. It cannot be done alone, although I can see the point of holding it as a value, but I think it places unfair, unrealistic, and absurd pressure at the individual level.
(...)
I am sorry to hear this situation is dire. My facetious comment was for the purpose of demonstrating how impossible that actually is as an option. It is fine to have an ideal of changing bad situations, but it isn't something we can as an individuals actually apply to reality with the ease of snapping our fingers. I was trying to show that it isn't a practical option for you for this specific scenario as it stands, so it was actually an attempt to show support, although I now want to be sure that wasn't lost in translation.

Actually, re-reading the OP, the reference to the unconscious becomes more and more relevant. Why would somebody believe in something that it's not true?

Well, this can shed light on the answer:
Solomon Asch - Conformity Experiment.
Asch Conformity Experiment | Simply Psychology



That is consistent with it being Te (judgment according to external values, in this case, the group). However, the explanation could easily be that it comes from the need to belong that's deeply rooted in the Collective Unconscious.

I think that plays a factor indeed.
But there is also a Right Wing Authoritarianism factor.

In the 1950s America was very conservative, involved in an anti-communist witch-hunt (which became known as McCarthyism) against anyone who was thought to hold sympathetic left-wing views. Conformity to American values was expected. Support for this comes from studies in the 1970s and 1980s that show lower conformity rates (e.g., Perrin & Spencer, 1980).

Perrin and Spencer (1980) suggested that the Asch effect was a "child of its time." They carried out an exact replication of the original Asch experiment using engineering, mathematics and chemistry students as subjects. They found that on only one out of 396 trials did an observer join the erroneous majority.

Perrin and Spencer argue that a cultural change has taken place in the value placed on conformity and obedience and in the position of students. In America in the 1950s students were unobtrusive members of society whereas now they occupy a free questioning role.

However, one problem in comparing this study with Asch is that very different types of participants are used. Perrin and Spencer used science and engineering students who might be expected to be more independent by training when it came to making perceptual judgments.

So, yeah, I think conformity does have to do with some expectancy to be indirectly punished - the participants may fear that the other participants might spread something against them - what Brazil RWA does a lot.


The answer to 'why does somebody would believe something that is not clearly true?' was given in theory.

 

[mancino]

I think it all goes way deeper that just '50 Conformity or Right Wing Authoritarianism.

When I want to figure out how these things work in their inner mechanism, I try to picture a Paleolithic hunter-gatherer tribe, because I believe our minds and psyches were forged back then. Or even earlier, actually, when we were mammals, or reptiles, in an evolutionary sense.

My take is that we have deep instinctual needs buried in our primordial functioning of the nervous system: the need to belong, the need to feel safe and secure, the need to have a solid worldview. The need to be strong, to dominate the environment. The need not to think. The need to survive. These are all buried deep down in the unconscious, because we can't control them and we are just partially aware of them. I would see them as instances of the Collective Unconscious, or the Shadow in us. They are neutral per se, because morality comes with the rational mind (frogs and dogs are not moral).

These instincts can collide with our rationality. Hence the apparently illogical view of a supposedly dominant Te user (to use some CogFunct speak). It's logic against gut, and the gut wins in this case. Humans can be pretty illogical and incoherent.

If we insist on using Cognitive Fucntions as a lens to see this, you can see this dogmatism a being Je, and the Shadow being in the opposing J. For a dogmatic Te, conflict with Ti and F; for a dogmatic Fe (there are many of those too), conflict with Fi and T. I can't really articulate this in Cog Funct, I find it limiting.

 

[Vendrah]

I think it all goes way deeper that just '50 Conformity or Right Wing Authoritarianism.

When I want to figure out how these things work in their inner mechanism, I try to picture a Paleolithic hunter-gatherer tribe, because I believe our minds and psyches were forged back then. Or even earlier, actually, when we were mammals, or reptiles, in an evolutionary sense.

My take is that we have deep instinctual needs buried in our primordial functioning of the nervous system: the need to belong, the need to feel safe and secure, the need to have a solid worldview. The need to be strong, to dominate the environment. The need not to think. The need to survive. These are all buried deep down in the unconscious, because we can't control them and we are just partially aware of them. I would see them as instances of the Collective Unconscious, or the Shadow in us. They are neutral per se, because morality comes with the rational mind (frogs and dogs are not moral).

These instincts can collide with our rationality. Hence the apparently illogical view of a supposedly dominant Te user (to use some CogFunct speak). It's logic against gut, and the gut wins in this case. Humans can be pretty illogical and incoherent.

If we insist on using Cognitive Fucntions as a lens to see this, you can see this dogmatism a being Je, and the Shadow being in the opposing J. For a dogmatic Te, conflict with Ti and F; for a dogmatic Fe (there are many of those too), conflict with Fi and T. I can't really articulate this in Cog Funct, I find it limiting.

You think what I did explained in the first post could be just an actually matter of instinct instead?
Hmm, mind elaborating XD?

 

[mancino]

In a nutshell: the dogmatic people that I know are not particularly rational. You can see they follow their "gut", as they say in English (and according to the Enneagram too)

Take, for example, the traditional vision that "Marriage is good", a formulaic dogma held by many old-fashioned women. A common value, undisputed (Fe, I think). I don't argue against marriage, mind you, it's just their method that bewilders me: no analysis, no evaluation of the situation, no flexibility. It all comes from a strong gut feeling that the world must be as it always was, or better still, go back to the good ol' days when everything was just fine. This frame of mind goes all the way down to practical and trivial matters, like how to cook a recipe (by the book) or how to set the table or do your bed. The rigid, oppressive Mother, who knows what's best for her Child because what she "believes" it's "the Truth".

Or take a common male example: that "Career is good", a formulaic dogma, held by almost everybody, especially men. The more you earn, the better. A common value, undisputed (Te, in this case). Again, I don't question the idea, it's the inflexibility that's dangerous. And it comes from a gut feeling, and it leads to rationalizing what is already held to be true. And then it goes all the way down, again, to how you should dress, or cut your hair, or what is manly or not. The rigid, oppressive Fathers who doesn't let his Child follow his/her path.

And the antidote? The Rebel, of course! Hence the need to say No, to go against the grain, against the current of common wisdom to question it and find your own. The Hero's path.

It actually explains it quite nicely, IMHO.

In Big5, it's Conscientiousness vs Openness, or J vs N in MBTI/CogFun. Both can be quite intelligent, but of a different flavor.
Think about this: An ESTJ can be quite smart, but will clash with an INTP. I have two friends of mine that whenever they meet they clash in this way. They are both very smart: the ESTJ is an engineer, manager, workaholic, but also a nice family guy, the "buddy" type; the INTP is a programmer, devil's advocate, iconoclast and funny guy, nerdish. They can't stand each other! And they have common interest too. It's amazing.
It's just that the ESTJ has these radical, dogmatic views, like: "Novels are useless" and the INTP would start an argument, and they would end making fun of one another's point of view, the ESTJ thinking that the INTP can't get things done, always philosophizing, and the ESTJ thinking that the ESTJ is just plain stupid.

My being ENTP with borderline J/P puts me in a position kind of in between. I sympathize much more with the INTP, TBH, but have the ET drive of the ESTJ, which the INTP lacks completely. He's always in his head. He is too right, so to speak. As he questions everything, he lacks a proper base for action, some good "formulas" to base his existence upon. The ESTJ is doing much better in life for this reason, and I don't mean just from a material point of view. Healthier and more balanced. Too much doubt becomes pointless.

That was my initial point: I need some formulas to live and move forward. They will be as wrong as Newton's Laws, but they will work, insofar as they will help me achieve what I want. I just have to keep them in check, so that they won't carry me away into intellectual wrongness too much, and be ready to actualize them if need be.