The 2nd Great Christian Argument

[Satya]

Type doesn't matter, truth is truth. If you choose to reject truth after it's presented, then you either know something that the other person doesn't, you're being dishonest, or you're not understanding it properly.

Or your stubborn as hell.

INFJs are driven by Ni. You gotta give us a break Duty. We get into our Ni mode and we feel like we have all the answers to the universe at our fingertips. Of course, giving a break never means you can't tear our arguments to shreds and make us reflect. Just know that you are talking to people who already sincerely feel they know the answer and will stick to it for as long as they can.

 

[AntoniaDodge]

Satya. You're top shelf.

You should know that about yourself.

 

[Duty]

Or your stubborn as hell.

INFJs are driven by Ni. You gotta give us a break Duty. We get into our Ni mode and we feel like we have all the answers to the universe at our fingertips. Of course, giving a break never means you can't tear our arguments to shreds and make us reflect. Just know that you are talking to people who already sincerely feel they know the answer and will stick to it for as long as they can.

Wasn't making a value judgment, I was just telling it like I see it. Denying truth typically means one of the things above. It's just that simple. Calling it bad or however you feel about it is a different matter.

Now, I understand what Ni is...it see patterns and makes judgments based off those patterns. All Ni dominant/secondary types are going to be Js...and Js notably are suspicious of what does not fit their notions they hold coming into the situation. But that doesn't make them true or untrue.

 

[Satya]

Now, I understand what Ni is...it see patterns and makes judgments based off those patterns.

That is pretty much it. I can take ecology, biology, Buddhism, Taoism, and physics and combine the underlying patterns of those things into a spiritual conception of the world. Temper that with Fe, and I can rationally derive values such as unity, equality, and liberty. Follow it up with some Ti, and I can make it a consistent and logical argument. Finish it up with a touch of Se, and I'll see proof of that spirituality in everything I come across in the world even though its an abstract of my own creation. INFJs are just geared by their Ni to integrate everything they learn into their belief system.

When an INFJ has made up their mind about a certain pattern, then it is virtually impossible to change that since it is probably connected to a million other things. Think of a spider web and you pretty much have a visual conception of an INFJ's belief system.

 

[Duty]

That is pretty much it. I can take ecology, biology, Buddhism, Taoism, and physics and combine the underlying patterns of those things into a spiritual conception of the world. Temper that with Fe, and I can rationally derive values such as unity, equality, and liberty. Follow it up with some Ti, and I can make it a consistent and logical argument. Finish it up with a touch of Se, and I'll see proof of that spirituality in everything I come across in the world even though its an abstract of my own creation. INFJs are just geared by their Ni to integrate everything they learn into their belief system.

When an INFJ has made up their mind about a certain pattern, then it is virtually impossible to change that since it is probably connected to a million other things. Think of a spider web and you pretty much have a visual conception of an INFJ's belief system.

That seems unfair and stubborn though, and I don't think INFJs are like that (but that's the picture I get from how you've explained here). If one of those beliefs in your web are proven wrong, isn't it your responsibility to reevaluate the parts that the belief has an effect on?

And, don't take it the wrong way, but Ni is just as good at building connections and a system off of false beliefs too. If your starting point is false, and you make connections to that...then the reasoning from your starting point to other beliefs is likely to be false.

 

[Satya]

That seems unfair and stubborn though, and I don't think INFJs are like that (but that's the picture I get from how you've explained here). If one of those beliefs in your web are proven wrong, isn't it your responsibility to reevaluate the parts that the belief has an effect on?

That is why I love hanging around INTPs. You guys are just so dandy at objectively evaluating our arguments. When you manage to tear down our arguments then that forces us to reflect on the beliefs they are based on, and if we find a flaw, then we have to reevaluate and adapt.

And, don't take it the wrong way, but Ni is just as good at building connections and a system off of false beliefs too. If your starting point is false, and you make connections to that...then the reasoning from your starting point to other beliefs is likely to be false.

We aren't linear like you guys. We don't start from a single point. We branch out from several different directions and form connections. But, yes, Ni users can easily build a system of false beliefs that seem rational in values and logic and even seems validated in the real world. You just need to hang around the anarchists on INTJforum to figure that out.

 

[IndigoSensor]

When an INFJ has made up their mind about a certain pattern, then it is virtually impossible to change that since it is probably connected to a million other things. Think of a spider web and you pretty much have a visual conception of an INFJ's belief system.

Ooooooooooooh so true

 

[Duty]

That is why I love hanging around INTPs. You guys are just so dandy at objectively evaluating our arguments. When you manage to tear down our arguments then that forces us to reflect on the beliefs they are based on, and if we find a flaw, then we have to reevaluate and adapt.

And I certainly appreciate those INFJs, and really anyone of any type, who has a new, unique perspective to break down...especially when they convince me it's right. I once fell in love with an INFJ partially because she had a perspective that made so much sense.

What is unfortunate is that most people just won't reevaluate. Those that do are wonderful (I'm one that will reevaluate I'm happy to say ), but most people will just dismiss the truth because it threatens their ego. That's frustrating.

But, yes, Ni users can easily build a system of false beliefs that seem rational in values and logic and even seems validated in the real world. You just need to hang around the anarchists on INTJforum to figure that out.

lol, INTJs...

 

[Satya]

And I certainly appreciate those INFJs, and really anyone of any type, who has a new, unique perspective to break down...especially when they convince me it's right. I once fell in love with an INFJ partially because she had a perspective that made so much sense.

What is unfortunate is that most people just won't reevaluate. Those that do are wonderful (I'm one that will reevaluate I'm happy to say ), but most people will just dismiss the truth because it threatens their ego. That's frustrating.

When you get down to it, truth is pretty relative. People will even take the same quantitative data and form completely different, and sometimes even contradictory interpretations from it. Humans are just such subjective creatures since we all have our own personal experiences and values, and that limits our ability to grasp any sort of objective truth. And as a result we generally go by how many people agree with or what utility is gained by following a certain truth. Consensus and utility are flawed in their own ways, and they generally generate conflicts since there is never a complete consensus or a perfect utility. The end result is that truth becomes an illusion, a culmination of our perception and knowledge of the world as filtered through our personal experiences and values, and validated via some sense of consensus or utility.

That doesn't mean you can't search for truth. It's important to improve upon our understanding of the world. It just means that because we are all human, we might just have to be satisfied with the least imperfect truth that we can derive, because the objective truth may simply be too complicated or just outside our ability to comprehend.

 

[VH]

That seems unfair and stubborn though, and I don't think INFJs are like that (but that's the picture I get from how you've explained here).

Unfortunately, for the most part, we are like that. All types have their strengths and weaknesses, which are often the same functions. INTPs for example have an amazing ability to brainstorm, but with it comes a need to explore all possibilities, to such an extent that can be misconstrued as their own opinions.

If one of those beliefs in your web are proven wrong, isn't it your responsibility to reevaluate the parts that the belief has an effect on?

No. Logical proof is not always proof, especially to a Feeling dominant personality. Over and over in history, people have stuck to their guns and been ultimately proven right when repeatedly 'proven' wrong.

A classic example is a sales debate. If you don't feel that you want something, but a salesperson 'proves' your objections to the sale wrong, are you obligated to make the purchase? No. The reason for this is simple. Proof is rarely all encompassing, and almost always subjective and situational. Most importantly, it doesn't change the way you feel. If it does, you've got little self integrity.

To make a more corruent example, I've proven repreatedly through logic that a human being is incapable of determining the existence or lack of existence of God. You seem to feel that this is not the case, and therefore won't reevaluate your stance to include the possibility.

And, don't take it the wrong way, but Ni is just as good at building connections and a system off of false beliefs too. If your starting point is false, and you make connections to that...then the reasoning from your starting point to other beliefs is likely to be false.

I agree with Satya. Ni goes from no starting point to a single end point. Ne often goes from one starting point to no end point. Ne is an explosion of possibilities, radiating out from a single source. Ni is an implosion of all sources compressing into a single possibility. Whether or not that is the correct possibility, it is the one we feel is correct. Or in the case of INTJs, think is correct.

As an INFJ, I feel that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. My Ni brought me to the notion, my Fe allowed me to feel what my Ni has developed to be the case, and my Ti has validated my Fe to an extent that my Fe is now bolstered. Throw in the fact that my Se has shown me evidence to support this state of absolute inconclusiveness, and even my Ti has reinforcement. When all four of an INFJs functions agree, it is nearly impossible to penetrate our stances. No amount of logic is going to press any further than our Ti. From there, you'd have to disarm our Fe, and then Ni, in order to get us to budge. That cannot be done with 'proof' alone. We need more than that.

 

[Duty]

A classic example is a sales debate. If you don't feel that you want something, but a salesperson 'proves' your objections to the sale wrong, are you obligated to make the purchase? No. The reason for this is simple. Proof is rarely all encompassing, and almost always subjective and situational. Most importantly, it doesn't change the way you feel. If it does, you've got little self integrity.

Sales aren't about descriptive propositional beliefs though. He's just trying to convince you to buy the product. "Should buy" the product is what we call a normative proposition (it's about what we should do, not about a fact in the world). "Will buy," "has bought," "is buying," etc describe what actually happens. We call those descriptive propositions (it's about proving a proposition that describes the world, and not about what the world "should" be like).

To make a more corruent example, I've proven repreatedly through logic that a human being is incapable of determining the existence or lack of existence of God. You seem to feel that this is not the case, and therefore won't reevaluate your stance to include the possibility.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=34142
You might find that thread interesting.

I offer the point of view that the problem with the God debate is that the word "God" can have a ton of different definitions. One can actually prove many of those definitions completely wrong (as the one in the thread was), and the only way to remedy is to change the definition to try and fit God into the picture. This is why there are TONS of differing opinions on the nature of God, what it means to be omnipotent, and the like. What makes one better then the other? The only answer I can give is that some are more interesting to the parties involved.