[Sequoia]

So this whole thread can be summed up by simply saying that

people, begin from different and possibly random starting points, can overcome what we lack to reach a state of higher learning, consciousness, and awareness. While the goal is the same--serenity and/or enlightenment--the required path will certainly differ from one person to another, from one type to another. Given the similarity of types of people, that path will often be similar for those types. Finally, because different types have natural gifts that fit precisely into that which does not come naturally to another type or person, those skills can be shared in an interdependent manner where all types benefit from the gifts of the other. This gets to the heart of why different types exist to begin with and why we are not all exactly the same. By specializing in certain areas, I would argue that humanity experiences a greater overall collective talent by virtue of the specializations of different types. The risk, however, is that other skills may atrophy. The necessity of interdependence is thus maintained by our mutual need. If spiritual independence is desired, then those atrophied skills must be developed, the process of which I suggest is the basis of rationality and enlightenment. This process can be aided by others because the particular gift of one person or one type can be shared from one type to another. As always, the acceptance of such a gesture will certainly be at the discretion of the type receiving such help. After all, only they know what is best for them.

Please note your last statement: "only they know what is best for them". Your assumption was that since your default position was logic, therefore, you had a lot to teach NF's in general about your stregnth. You never took into account that many NF individuals have learned this well through experience and associations with other NT's. Many NT's as well have learned from NF's in their lives as well.

It's your assumption that is causing difficulty. NF's don't just react to the surface; we also read the underlying issues as well. We react to them naturally and communicate to those as well as the surface. Sinequanon is doing so.

Now, about my definition of rationality; what have you come up with?

[Deliberator]

	Originally Posted by Sequoia To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Mature N types find that when emotions and/or logic is in conflict with intuition, intuition always has the correct answer.

I like your definition of rationality (although I would contend this is more the definition of pragmatism, which is my personal philosophy) but I cannot agree with this quoted assertion; I have seen many "mature" iNtuitives come to faulty conclusions because they so trust their intuitions. We all know that we intuitives have a nasty habit of knowing that we're right, because we are more often than not, but we're not fallible. And usually the reason we aren't is either because we haven't thought through it and challenged it logically, or else we're just too damn lazy and biased to look for facts that may go against what we have enthusiastically concluded.

I think intuition is a wonderful tool in getting a person to the right answer more quickly, but without proper use of logic it fails miserably. I don't think this tendency is just an F thing either, my mother is an NT and constantly rides along on iNtuition without properly challenging the idea with the various logical techniques that give rise to healthy skepticism.

[Sequoia]

Originally Posted by Deliberator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I like your definition of rationality (although I would contend this is more the definition of pragmatism, which is my personal philosophy) but I cannot agree with this quoted assertion; I have seen many "mature" iNtuitives come to faulty conclusions because they so trust their intuitions. We all know that we intuitives have a nasty habit of knowing that we're right, because we are more often than not, but we're not fallible. And usually the reason we aren't is either because we haven't thought through it and challenged it logically, or else we're just too damn lazy and biased to look for facts that may go against what we have enthusiastically concluded. I think intuition is a wonderful tool in getting a person to the right answer more quickly, but without proper use of logic it fails miserably. I don't think this tendency is just an F thing either, my mother is an NT and constantly rides along on iNtuition without properly challenging the idea with the various logical techniques that give rise to healthy skepticism.

My experience is to the contrary. But I have found that if emotions interfer with pure intuition, the results will be erronious and that is when logic can sometimes help sort it out. A desired outcome is most certainly an emotion. The stronger the emotion, the more likely this is to happen. If the emotion is strong enough, no amount of logic will untangle things. I think this is what you've been observing.

Devoid of logic and emotion both, I find I get consistantly corrrect information from my intuition and when it is in conflict with logic, logic fails me because it is lacking information my intuition has picked up.

[Deliberator]

Originally Posted by Sequoia To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My experience is to the contrary. But I have found that if emotions interfer with pure intuition, the results will be erronious and that is when logic can sometimes help sort it out. A desired outcome is most certainly an emotion. The stronger the emotion, the more likely this is to happen. If the emotion is strong enough, no amount of logic will untangle things. I think this is what you've been observing. Devoid of logic and emotion both, I find I get consistantly corrrect information from my intuition and when it is in conflict with logic, logic fails me because it is lacking information my intuition has picked up.

So what you're really saying is that intuition is handy in coming to a correct conclusion when no facts are available, not when intuition actually contradicts logic. There is a difference between facts and logic. You still cannot assert that an assumption based on intuition in the absence of factual backing is always bound to be right. We aren't infallible.

I'm not sure what you're saying with the untangling of logic and a desired outcome being an emotion. You'll have to reword all that.

[lemallard]

	Originally Posted by Sequoia To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm going to give you an alternative definition of rationality; using whatever combination of modes arrives at the best solution(s) for a given problem or goal. This can be logic, emotion or intuitive processes.

I think that this is a wonderful definition, and I also believe that it is compatible with the hypothesis that I presented. In effect, I think that your definition is analogous to what Kisai said, that intelligence is being effective. While I feel that the idea of effectiveness better describes rationality, and that intelligence is, in fact, a very broad term covering a plurality of different skills, Kisai was going in the right direction. Your definition completes it.

However, I do not believe that logic and emotion necessarily act independently of each other. Like brakes and the accelerator on a car, I believe that they are used in concert with each other and that one process is given priority over another, depending on the type.

As for what I have to offer to NFs, or to any other type, any suggestion that my contribution, or any contribution by someone like me, is a one way street, is incorrect. NFs are extremely attractive teachers, for lack of a better word. While the context of this thread may have led you to conclude otherwise, this is not my intent. It is an unfortunate misunderstanding. My repeated references to Shakespeare and Dante are symbolic of my high regard for NFs and what they have to contribute.

I also acknowledge that other NTs--or other types, including NFs--may very well have trained your logical reasoning skills as well. There is no need for this process to be conducted by me. I merely made a post that started a thread. Nonetheless, I am a representative NT, and I can objectively speak of my experience as an NT, and I can also confidently speculate about the views of other NTs. In the absence of other contributions from NTs, my efforts to do so must suffice in this regard. Fortunately, other NTs have contributed, thus adding a measure of authenticity to my speculations.

Nonetheless, your definition has great merit, and I believe that it blends seamlessly with the flow of this thread.

Now, I also believe that your example of being a female INFJ chess player is apropos. I love this example.

Personally, I am not a great chess player. Perhaps I could be better with time and practice, but there is nothing special about my chess playing ability. Perhaps you could teach me.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


An acquaintance of mine, an INTP, is in fact a talented chess master. Being of identical types, we can begin by comparing equivalents. He has suggested to me that a distinguishing quality of a superior chess player is their ability to visualize scenarios in their mind with accuracy. He possesses this skill to a great degree, whereas my visualization is mediocre. I am more of a sound-oriented thinker who possesses perfect pitch hearing. As such, it would be accurate to say that I am mixture of audio-visual thinking, rather than a visual savant like my friend.

Given your success at chess, I would infer that it is likely that you have superior visualization skills. I would also argue that intuitive, chain of events thinking is also beneficial for the movement patterns that constitute the game. As such, I would expect that any intuitive, either feeler or thinker, would be a superior chess player if they also possess superior visualization skills. A sensor with superior visualization would also expect to be a strong player, but I would also expect that they would struggle at the highest levels of the sport, given the extra advantage that a visually gifted intuitive would possess.

In short, an intuitive's inductive superiority during the middle game would trump the sensor's likely deductive superiority at the end game.

However, visualization falls outside of the Myers Briggs type model. To quote Mark Twain, "When the only thing that you hold is a hammer, it is funny how the world suddenly begins to look like a nail." Type theory, as well as thought preferences displayed by a given type, embody Twain's caution. Because these tools are so useful, it is tempting to use them for everything and to rely on them to the exclusion of all else. I am no exception to Twain's rebuke, either. However, by suggesting that all types must incorporate that which does not come naturally--including myself--I am suggesting a way out of this trap. Because different people are trapped by different limitations, other types of people are well suited to recognize those mistakes as they occur.

Basically, by doing what comes easily to me, I can make your life easier in a way that would be more difficult for you to do yourself. Conversely, because some things come easily to you, you can make life easier for me in a way that would be difficult for me to do myself. You, however, are the arbiter of what you deem is of greatest priority to you. My gist here is that, once I identify what, precisely, matters the most to you, I may have a good idea to make it a reality, and vice versa. Or I may not. And you are free to choose from that contribution a la carte as it suits you.

Chess, however, is not necessarily an emotionless sport. When Gary Kasparov first played against Deep Blue, IBM's supercomputer chess program, he lost his first game, even though he eventually won the match. The reason for his first loss was because of how he started the game. He made the mistake of trying to psyche out the computer. Kasparov decided to use a tactically inferior move to begin the game to create the illusion of inscrutability on his part.

The intended effect of Kasparov's strategy was to confuse his opponent into acting emotionally. Given Kasparov's reputation, an opponent would initially reflect on such a move and fail to see the expected advantage. However, given Kasparov's reputation, they would erroneously conclude that Kasparov must, somehow, have determined an advantage. Unable to see this supposed advantage, the human opponents could be relied on to panic. This panic then sets off an inferior thought process that Kasparov could then use to his advantage.

In effect, Kasparov won by disabling his opponents' logical reasoning process. Tempted to use this tactic, he tried this on Deep Blue. Unimpressed, Deep Blue proceeded to ruthlessly capitalize on the gift that Kasparov had offered. Too far behind from the outset, Kasparov could not recover and eventually lost the game.

Recognizing his error, Kasparov then inferred how Deep Blue operated. In real time and by evaluating Deep Blue's moves, he reverse engineered--intuitively--Deep Blue's logical structure. Kasparov then proceeded to generalize his moves, thus maximizing the necessary processing time by Deep Blue. This placed the maximum possible burden on Deep Blue, at which time Kasparov unveiled his true strategy at the last possible moment. He proceeded to win the game and ultimately the match.

The manipulation of emotion, in fact, is a tactic that Kasparov has often used. Resilience against this blow to morale would be an important aspect of being a good chess player. Personally, I am not sure whether an NT or an NF would be best suited to resist it. On the one hand, there is the confidence of the NT in their statistical reasoning. On the other hand, their assumption of solely mathematical/visual reasoning by Kasparov could very well render an NT more likely to panic than an INFJ, who would be better suited to recognize Kasparov's motives.

[Sequoia]

Originally Posted by Deliberator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So what you're really saying is that intuition is handy in coming to a correct conclusion when no facts are available, not when intuition actually contradicts logic. There is a difference between facts and logic. You still cannot assert that an assumption based on intuition in the absence of factual backing is always bound to be right. We aren't infallible. I'm not sure what you're saying with the untangling of logic and a desired outcome being an emotion. You'll have to reword all that.

I am asserting exactly that. I learned that lesson the hard way over the years by believing as you do now, only to be proved wrong in each case. I get much better results now. Intuition contradicts logic when logic has incomplete or inaccurate information to work from. At least that has been my 50+ years experieces with it.





Sequoia added to this post, 6 minutes and 47 seconds later...

Originally Posted by lemallard To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think that this is a wonderful definition, and I also believe that it is compatible with the hypothesis that I presented. In effect, I think that your definition is analogous to what Kisai said, that intelligence is being effective. While I feel that the idea of effectiveness better describes rationality, and that intelligence is, in fact, a very broad term covering a plurality of different skills, Kisai was going in the right direction. Your definition completes it. However, I do not believe that logic and emotion necessarily act independently of each other. Like brakes and the accelerator on a car, I believe that they are used in concert with each other and that one process is given priority over another, depending on the type. As for what I have to offer to NFs, or to any other type, any suggestion that my contribution, or any contribution by someone like me, is a one way street, is incorrect. NFs are extremely attractive teachers, for lack of a better word. While the context of this thread may have led you to conclude otherwise, this is not my intent. It is an unfortunate misunderstanding. My repeated references to Shakespeare and Dante are symbolic of my high regard for NFs and what they have to contribute. I also acknowledge that other NTs--or other types, including NFs--may very well have trained your logical reasoning skills as well. There is no need for this process to be conducted by me. I merely made a post that started a thread. Nonetheless, I am a representative NT, and I can objectively speak of my experience as an NT, and I can also confidently speculate about the views of other NTs. In the absence of other contributions from NTs, my efforts to do so must suffice in this regard. Fortunately, other NTs have contributed, thus adding a measure of authenticity to my speculations. Nonetheless, your definition has great merit, and I believe that it blends seamlessly with the flow of this thread. Now, I also believe that your example of being a female INFJ chess player is apropos. I love this example. Personally, I am not a great chess player. Perhaps I could be better with time and practice, but there is nothing special about my chess playing ability. Perhaps you could teach me. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. An acquaintance of mine, an INTP, is in fact a talented chess master. Being of identical types, we can begin by comparing equivalents. He has suggested to me that a distinguishing quality of a superior chess player is their ability to visualize scenarios in their mind with accuracy. He possesses this skill to a great degree, whereas my visualization is mediocre. I am more of a sound-oriented thinker who possesses perfect pitch hearing. As such, it would be accurate to say that I am mixture of audio-visual thinking, rather than a visual savant like my friend. Given your success at chess, I would infer that it is likely that you have superior visualization skills. I would also argue that intuitive, chain of events thinking is also beneficial for the movement patterns that constitute the game. As such, I would expect that any intuitive, either feeler or thinker, would be a superior chess player if they also possess superior visualization skills. A sensor with superior visualization would also expect to be a strong player, but I would also expect that they would struggle at the highest levels of the sport, given the extra advantage that a visually gifted intuitive would possess. In short, an intuitive's inductive superiority during the middle game would trump the sensor's likely deductive superiority at the end game. However, visualization falls outside of the Myers Briggs type model. To quote Mark Twain, "When the only thing that you hold is a hammer, it is funny how the world suddenly begins to look like a nail." Type theory, as well as thought preferences displayed by a given type, embody Twain's caution. Because these tools are so useful, it is tempting to use them for everything and to rely on them to the exclusion of all else. I am no exception to Twain's rebuke, either. However, by suggesting that all types must incorporate that which does not come naturally--including myself--I am suggesting a way out of this trap. Because different people are trapped by different limitations, other types of people are well suited to recognize those mistakes as they occur. Basically, by doing what comes easily to me, I can make your life easier in a way that would be more difficult for you to do yourself. Conversely, because some things come easily to you, you can make life easier for me in a way that would be difficult for me to do myself. You, however, are the arbiter of what you deem is of greatest priority to you. My gist here is that, once I identify what, precisely, matters the most to you, I may have a good idea to make it a reality, and vice versa. Or I may not. And you are free to choose from that contribution a la carte as it suits you. Chess, however, is not necessarily an emotionless sport. When Gary Kasparov first played against Deep Blue, IBM's supercomputer chess program, he lost his first game, even though he eventually won the match. The reason for his first loss was because of how he started the game. He made the mistake of trying to psyche out the computer. Kasparov decided to use a tactically inferior move to begin the game to create the illusion of inscrutability on his part. The intended effect of Kasparov's strategy was to confuse his opponent into acting emotionally. Given Kasparov's reputation, an opponent would initially reflect on such a move and fail to see the expected advantage. However, given Kasparov's reputation, they would erroneously conclude that Kasparov must, somehow, have determined an advantage. Unable to see this supposed advantage, the human opponents could be relied on to panic. This panic then sets off an inferior thought process that Kasparov could then use to his advantage. In effect, Kasparov won by disabling his opponents' logical reasoning process. Tempted to use this tactic, he tried this on Deep Blue. Unimpressed, Deep Blue proceeded to ruthlessly capitalize on the gift that Kasparov had offered. Too far behind from the outset, Kasparov could not recover and eventually lost the game. Recognizing his error, Kasparov then inferred how Deep Blue operated. In real time and by evaluating Deep Blue's moves, he reverse engineered--intuitively--Deep Blue's logical structure. Kasparov then proceeded to generalize his moves, thus maximizing the necessary processing time by Deep Blue. This placed the maximum possible burden on Deep Blue, at which time Kasparov unveiled his true strategy at the last possible moment. He proceeded to win the game and ultimately the match. The manipulation of emotion, in fact, is a tactic that Kasparov has often used. Resilience against this blow to morale would be an important aspect of being a good chess player. Personally, I am not sure whether an NT or an NF would be best suited to resist it. On the one hand, there is the confidence of the NT in their statistical reasoning. On the other hand, their assumption of solely mathematical/visual reasoning by Kasparov could very well render an NT more likely to panic than an INFJ, who would be better suited to recognize Kasparov's motives.

I love the chess anology that you used. It is dead on. I do use good visualization abilities and intuition and emotional strategies. Back when I was under 20, chess was my game of choice. These days it's poker.

The MBTI is but only one tool to use in understanding and improving ourselves, this is also true. I'm not sure why it follows we must then use it to get beyond its categorizations. I think it's rather the other way; we are already beyond the limitations of the tool. The best ways to utilize different stregnths each person pocesses is to combine them by collaberation. In that way, results can be stronger on a project where both talents are needed and in the process, both can gain insight into the processes of the other.

[lemallard]

Originally Posted by Sequoia To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I love the chess anology that you used. It is dead on. I do use good visualization abilities and intuition and emotional strategies. Back when I was under 20, chess was my game of choice. These days it's poker. The MBTI is but only one tool to use in understanding and improving ourselves, this is also true. I'm not sure why it follows we must then use it to get beyond its categorizations. I think it's rather the other way; we are already beyond the limitations of the tool. The best ways to utilize different stregnths each person pocesses is to combine them by collaberation. In that way, results can be stronger on a project where both talents are needed and in the process, both can gain insight into the processes of the other.

I am a poker player myself. I love the game.

As for MBTI, I think that its usefulness is the universality of its categories, not their inclusiveness of all human traits. My suspicion is that the salience of the traits that Jung, Myers, and Briggs identified exists because of their inherent conflict with each other. Without some priority mechanism, neither capacity would be able to function at a high level.

For example, for logic to work to identify a fact--such as the life or death of a loved one--our hopes that that person is still alive will interfere with our determination. Likewise, for emotions to be processed rationally, they cannot be suppressed. Needs do not disappear simply by wishing that it is so. This is one reason why logic is not always the best solution when dealing with an emotional matter. Sometimes this suppression is the problem--and the logical solution is to temporarily suspend any kind of goal oriented logic.

Another example that I like to give is that of handedness. Why are we right or left handed? Contrary to perception, congenital ambidexterity is extremely rare. The vast majority of ambidextrous people learned to be that way, usually because they were left handed as children or because they played a sport that required it.

By forcing a person to have a bias, the mind cuts in half the learning that is necessary to master a skill, such as hitting a baseball. To master this skill with both hands, this would require twice the training. As a result of this necessity, switch hitting baseball players must practice their batting twice as long.

These conflicts result in the polarity that Myers Briggs is known for, but there is certainly more to the human mind and heart than Myers Briggs. Other characteristics are probably notable for their universality or idiosyncrasy: either almost all of us have the same trait--such as eyesight--or some random scattering of people have a trait--such as red hair--and so on. As for my audio-visual mindset, the idea that I am both is not necessarily contradictory--as it would be with Myers Briggs--because these processes can exist in parallel without conflicting with each other.