[MBTI General] S and disbelief of concepts?

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Sometimes I see people argue that a particular concept "doesn't exist", as a concept is an abstraction over the whole, but all there is to a whole is it's parts.

This position is best described as reductionism, some of which is greedy.

I'm not sure if this disbelief of concepts is really tied to one's use of S function. Continuum fallacy is something similar. People argue that a phenomenon exists in a continuum, like amount of hair on someone's head. It's arbitrary decision to draw the line between a bald man and someone having hair, so they argue it's a poor concept, and shouldn't be used at all.

I've also seen somewhat similar argument, telling that there's no instance of a perfect capitalism in the world, and no instance of perfect communism has ever occured, so there's no communism or capitalism at all.

This "no concepts" belief pleases some people. Disbelievers often point out that the concepts aren't as readily verifiable, they've been made arbitrarily, could be done in a different way, or they don't otherwise satisfy their arbitrary ( !!! ) criteria.

Is this group the S group?

 

[substitute]

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about here... to clarify, if I tell you an example of something that's popped into my head on reading your OP, could you tell me if it's along the lines of what you were thinking?

My friend D tends to believe that something having been unsuccessfully applied means that the idea itself was flawed or not valid. For example, if I suggest going to the cinema with friends as a way to cheer yourself up when you're down, and he goes to the cinema to see a crappy movie with some people he's not really keen on, these subtleties seem to pass him by and he'll just be happy to state in future, if I suggest it again, "No, I tried it and it didn't work, I just felt even worse" - in his mind now, going to the cinema with friends is NOT a feasible way to cheer yourself up if you're feeling down. I'd have my work cut out to try to convince him that it wasn't the idea that was at fault, but his execution of it, and that, executed differently, the idea could still work.

Is that the sort of thing you mean?

 

[ArbiterDewey]

Sometimes I see people argue that a particular concept "doesn't exist", as a concept is an abstraction over the whole, but all there is to a whole is it's parts.

This position is best described as reductionism, some of which is greedy.

I'm not sure if this disbelief of concepts is really tied to one's use of S function. Continuum fallacy is something similar. People argue that a phenomenon exists in a continuum, like amount of hair on someone's head. It's arbitrary decision to draw the line between a bald man and someone having hair, so they argue it's a poor concept, and shouldn't be used at all.

I've also seen somewhat similar argument, telling that there's no instance of a perfect capitalism in the world, and no instance of perfect communism has ever occured, so there's no communism or capitalism at all.

This "no concepts" belief pleases some people. Disbelievers often point out that the concepts aren't as readily verifiable, they've been made arbitrarily, could be done in a different way, or they don't otherwise satisfy their arbitrary ( !!! ) criteria.

Is this group the S group?

Read the links and, honestly, I'm not identifying at all. Sorry

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Is that the sort of thing you mean?

You're talking about a parallel subject, disbelief of theory.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

The kind of "no concepts" talk I'm thinking goes like this:

"What is this talk about someone being 'fashionable'? Someone liking some new stuff? I'm arguing that this new stuff has existed before in some form. Is fashion something that's being liked by many people? Well, people can change their minds, so what's fashionable at one time, isn't fashionable at other time. What's such a concept that changes as people change their minds? So, there's no such thing as fashion."

Simpler examples include statements such as "there's no temperature, it's just movement of atoms" and "there's no justice, there's just people getting punished or not".

 

[Cimarron]

Hmmm....I'm not sure. I understand what you're talking about when you explain reductionism and the continuum fallacy (is there anything that can't be classified as a fallacy? ), since I've seen them in action before. I can't decide whether I'm prone to believing/making them or not, I'd have to think about it more, and try to remember past arguments and debates.

So for now, unsure.

Edit: Oh, the "it's all relative" catchphrase. Yeah, I like using that one. But then, I also often say "you've got to put the boundaries somewhere". So maybe it could be both.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

(is there anything that can't be classified as a fallacy? )

But.. but.. it's one of my favorite concepts

Edit: Oh, the "it's all relative" catchphrase. Yeah, I like using that one.

Uhh I hate it ;P

But then, I also often say "you've got to put the boundaries somewhere".

I'm an advocate of this :hi:

 

[Cimarron]

More often than not, it probably depends on which side of the argument I'm sitting. You know what I mean? Whichever would help break the other person's argument.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

More often than not, it probably depends on which side of the argument I'm sitting. You know what I mean? Whichever would help break the other person's argument.

Ooh disbelief tactic, or one of ignorance. That's a hard one, I think I often fall for that. It's easy for me to believe people are dumb and can't grasp the concepts..

 

[prplchknz]

I'm not sure what you're wanting, but I'm guessing. My room mate believes certain things and even if you present her with logical fallacies/and or evidence against of what she believes on a topic she refuses to change her mind. This is what happened one time, therefore this is right, any evidence against that is wrong.

 

[Condor]

Sometimes I see people argue that a particular concept "doesn't exist", as a concept is an abstraction over the whole, but all there is to a whole is it's parts.

This position is best described as reductionism, some of which is greedy.

I'm not sure if this disbelief of concepts is really tied to one's use of S function. Continuum fallacy is something similar. People argue that a phenomenon exists in a continuum, like amount of hair on someone's head. It's arbitrary decision to draw the line between a bald man and someone having hair, so they argue it's a poor concept, and shouldn't be used at all.

I've also seen somewhat similar argument, telling that there's no instance of a perfect capitalism in the world, and no instance of perfect communism has ever occured, so there's no communism or capitalism at all.

This "no concepts" belief pleases some people. Disbelievers often point out that the concepts aren't as readily verifiable, they've been made arbitrarily, could be done in a different way, or they don't otherwise satisfy their arbitrary ( !!! ) criteria.

Is this group the S group?

Whether the concept exists - as a part or a whole - doesn't matter (to me) with regard to making a specific decision. As an example, how can a capitalistic ecomonic system be such when hospitals exist in a socialist economic setting can be debated ad infinitium. I don't rely on philisopocal debates and their conclusions to make decisions.

Just my thoughts...

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Whether the concept exists - as a part or a whole - doesn't matter (to me) with regard to making a specific decision. As an example, how can a capitalistic ecomonic system be such when hospitals exist in a socialist economic setting can be debated ad infinitium. I don't rely on philisopocal debates and their conclusions to make decisions.

Just my thoughts...

That's a fairly ordinary exercise; X could be either this way or that way, so let's not think about it. As far as it's about making decisions, I too wouldn't make decisions by reasoning I can't follow or by facts I can't understand.

I guess all people have some areas of decision making where they'll do poorly; by using any method they're capable of in that problem domain, they would just do a disfavor to themselves.

If you consider reality anything that doesn't go away when stopping to imagine about it, you find many concepts real too; the sum, average and median about a set of numbers, popularity of a person, someone's position on a political spectrum and so on.

Perhaps I'm extremely Te with my views then; I know person's popularity can be measured by page impressions, google hits, etc.. the topic of popularity can never be thoroughly studied, and those simple tools provide only a limited view on the subject.. still, they can be used to good effect for some purposes. I feel better by using some data and acknowledging the problems rather than sitting unless until the understanding is perfect, perhaps eternally.

Perhaps this "no concepts" thing is really "bad concept" speak, advocated by perfectionist thinkers?

 

[Condor]

That's a fairly ordinary exercise; X could be either this way or that way, so let's not think about it. As far as it's about making decisions, I too wouldn't make decisions by reasoning I can't follow or by facts I can't understand.

I guess all people have some areas of decision making where they'll do poorly; by using any method they're capable of in that problem domain, they would just do a disfavor to themselves.

If you consider reality anything that doesn't go away when stopping to imagine about it, you find many concepts real too; the sum, average and median about a set of numbers, popularity of a person, someone's position on a political spectrum and so on.

Perhaps I'm extremely Te with my views then; I know person's popularity can be measured by page impressions, google hits, etc.. the topic of popularity can never be thoroughly studied, and those simple tools provide only a limited view on the subject.. still, they can be used to good effect for some purposes. I feel better by using some data and acknowledging the problems rather than sitting unless the understanding is perferct, perhaps eternally.

Perhaps this "no concepts" thing is really "bad concept" speak, advocated by perfectionist thinkers?

Don't know what perfectionist thinkers you're referring to but with respect to reality, I believe my concept of reality is strictly derived from my senses. Since I have to interpret what my senses tell me, my version of reality is skewed to my way of thinking (as it is, I would venture to say, for everyone else). This is why debates on the concepts of reality (does this concept exist or does this one...) are IMO rather pointless. It's not so much that I prefer not to think about it, I rather ask what can I do about it?

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Don't know what perfectionist thinkers you're referring to but with respect to reality, I believe my concept of reality is strictly derived from my senses. Since I have to interpret what my senses tell me, my version of reality is skewed to my way of thinking (as it is, I would venture to say, for everyone else). This is why debates on the concepts of reality (does this concept exist or does this one...) are IMO rather pointless. It's not so much that I prefer not to think about it, I rather ask what can I do about it?

I'm always thinking what I can do with a piece of information, too. I mean, by doing something, you get something.. you exert some effort, and get a result. Now that's not a bad thing by any means.

But.. I've noticed there's some desire of truth for some people, desire to write truthful accounts of things that exist, and I've found it worthwhile. I mean, I really believe I can learn a great deal by just studying books, or other second-hand accounts of real things. When I learn a new math concept, for example, I've made sure it's exactly as told; I do the exercises and see it myself. So I guess much of what I've learned is theory based, and I like to have it assured and certain.

I try to stay on top of the kinds of lies, forgeries, deceptions and such to make sure I really learn something about the reality when I read a book, as opposed to something imaginary without an application - something that doesn't have firm relation to the reality.

But.. I always want there to be a way to check it out if a given fact is true. I don't have to be the one doing the fact-checking; I can trust, for example, that the scientist probably reviewed all the relevant facts, and their finding can be independently verified or nullified.

So, I trust that people can be sure enough about a lot of things they can't directly verify, but they just have to develop a personal hierarchy of trust to tell the reliable and unreliable pieces of information apart.

Edit: also, to be able to back off from a situation where they've been misguided. That's a must when using potentially unreliable information.

 

[Cimarron]

It just occurred to me that I gave responses for what I say, but you were probably looking for responses for what I believe. That's much harder for me to self-analyze. What about consciously holding beliefs that contradict each other? ...Possible. I like to pick up ideas with the "never say never" mindset, because at any time they could be proven wrong or worthless, or surprisingly relevant. Of course, I would like that closure, also (because we're Js?), but I figure that you have to consider all the possibilities first, so closure often can't come as soon as you would like it.

 

[Condor]

It just occurred to me that I gave responses for what I say, but you were probably looking for responses for what I believe. That's much harder for me to self-analyze. What about consciously holding beliefs that contradict each other? ...Possible. I like to pick up ideas with the "never say never" mindset, because at any time they could be proven wrong or worthless, or surprisingly relevant. Of course, I would like that closure, also (because we're Js?), but I figure that you have to consider all the possibilities first, so closure often can't come as soon as you would like it.

Can you give some examples of consciously holding beliefs that contradict each other? I honestly can't think of any...

With regard to Santtu's last post (sorry - don't know how to quote more than one in a post) your example of math concepts is interesting. I teach introductory electrical engineering, and the math is a big part of what we do. Without getting into a math lecture, I point out that the names hypotenuse, complex number, vector, etc. are really just names for (mostly) diagonal lines. Too many try to internalize someone else's names and terms. I tell them the easiest way to understand it to think of them in your own words. Too many will simply say "that's what the author says" or something to that effect. It's much easier relying on others - and using scentific proofs isn't a bad thing - but the understanding by the individual (again, internalized) must still be there.

Wrapping back to Cimarron's post, indeed closure is a good thing (not the attempt at closure). Perhaps we can't consider all of the possibilities, but we can consider all that we are aware of. We still recognize, of course, other factors or data may appear later that may cause us to change our conclusions, but we still need to operate based on what we know at the time, and not what may or may not be. If I can do that, then the "what ifs" are of no consequence.

Very interesting stuff...