'I'll let others judge the coherence of your posts. I am not concerned about ignoring them, however much that upsets you.|||This is you telling a story. It is not an argument, and so not a refutation.|||What you cite is not the claim I said I distanced myself from in my previous post. It has a completely different meaning and only seems 'pretty straightforwardly' the same to you because of your...|||No. Why would they?|||That's why I have said, repeatedly, that I never claimed to prove the non-existence of innate mathematical and logical knowledge. I claimed that there are no people with such innate knowledge, which...|||This is incoherent. I'm sorry.|||Last time you said this it turned out to be wrong. You'll have to be more specific.    This is certainly not my claim.    It follows from the fact that there are countless descriptions of...|||Congratulations, you've posited a generic skeptical challenge that is applicable to every empirical claim ever. I wrote that you could make this objection in two of my earlier posts, but I also...|||It's not nonsense at all, and what you're doing amounts to crude conflation. I'll clarify my previous argument against it, since you apparently did not understand it or either way did not want to: ...|||I take it that you didn't understand what I said. In that case I'll clarify. There is rudimentary logic that is innate by virtue of a certain innate grammar that is hard-wired into our brains, but...|||If it's empirically true that there are no people with innate knowledge of logic, then I take this to be demonstrated by that they need to learn about logic, which is true and observable. This was,...|||This couldn't qualify as having knowledge of logic. If it did, then there would be no difference between consciously applying the definition of a logically valid argument and doing so by complete...|||Read the link before you spout nonsense. The grammar that is learned in school is not innate, but is derivatively constructed upon an innate grammar. This is immediately analogous to that the...|||I didn't claim to have proven the non-existence of innate mathematical or logical knowledge. I said that my argument resided with the claim that there are no people who have innate knowledge of this...|||This is false. Language (grammar, specifically) is innate.|||It's not possible to demonstrate non-existence. Accordingly, I can't show you that there is another kind of logic that is different from formal logic, just like I cannot show you that there are no...|||I used your definitions, as well as mine, to interpret your claim that I didn't show any Fe or Ti. Yours didn't make sense, but I also invited you to tell me what you meant by Feeling and Thinking in...|||I still don't have any idea what you're talking about. A word can have an infinite number of meanings.    Yes, it is trivially true that if you interpret a to mean something other than A,...|||No you didn't. I pointed towards you in post #323, and you only claimed to point towards me in post #324. Since #323 precedes #324, your claim is obviously false.    Where did I delete words?...|||I pointed towards you as a concrete instance, so I didn't fail to deliver. Accordingly, you have provided no concrete instances.    How did what I said change? Please enlighten me.|||I am providing a concrete instance when I challenge you to do it and you fail to deliver. You failed this time also. You're just saying that it's everywhere!. Well, if it's everywhere, then it...|||I readily admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. I showed you that circularity is a general feature of definitions; you seem greatly troubled by this fact.    I'm very confused...|||So when you use the term 'logic' to describe yourselves, how do you all understand it?|||Most people will be using the word in a misleading way, as we have both found. This just means that those people are using it in the wrong way. If you start using the word 'mathematics' in a way that...|||I claim that it isn't because of your blatant inability to provide any instances that show that what you are claiming is true. This is a complete argument and not a mere claim. If you want to...|||If you had read the thread, you would have seen that the current understanding is that Jung takes 'Thinking' to be about 'realism'. This means that, when understood properly, 'Thinking' has nothing...|||You claimed that it had been made evident by things said in the thread. Justify yourself.    I think it is supported by the arguments I've given. If you don't think that, then feel free to show...|||Most people see these things in me. Well, definitely the idealism. They see the logic once I've explained to them what logic is.|||I ignore it because it's irrelevant. Your conclusion is false as per my argument, which you have refused to respond to three times in a row at this point. Simply defining something in different ways...|||To me, these look like fine definitions of what stereotypes are. Still, if you disagree for whatever reason, then I can just refer to the difficulty of determining what 'Logos' and 'Eros' are...|||Theoretical stuff is not idealism. Idealism is about how things ought to be; not how they could be. My reductive account of 'Thinking' being realism and 'Feeling' being idealism seems to fit...|||So then if one rejects gender stereotypes, then one rejects the distinction between Feeling and Thinking.|||Supposing this to be true, it would seem that there is some difficulty explaining the difference between INFP and INTP. Their dominant functions are both introverted, but INFPs are decisive idealists...|||I hope you realise that it's straightforward verification of what I've been saying all along. 'Thinking' has nothing to do with logic, such that if you describe 'Thinkers' as 'logical', which people...|||Oh, I agree. It is a misleading meaning that should be gotten rid of, which is what this thread tries to do.|||Well, that would just be because countless people have come to use terms like 'logic' in grossly misleading ways in the context of MBTI, which is what this thread is all about showing.|||This has the implication that if one rejects the distinction between idealism and realism, then one rejects all of typology (at least as far as Jung's work goes, however far that extends).|||My argument destroys 'T' types as they are commonly understood, i.e. in terms of being 'logical' or 'rational'. Given some new and extremely interesting information that has been added by...|||If this is true, such that 'Thinking' really only amounts to a dispositional commitment to 'realism', then it really is the case that 'Thinking' has nothing to do with logic. I am absolutely amazed...|||I didn't see the implication in Algorithmics original post, so I suspected that it was just you who read it into what he said because you believed it yourself. Lo and behold; after a couple of...|||Where?    'Feelers' calling 'Thinkers' irrational? No. Feelers get angry with 'Thinkers' for being inconsiderate, which is not the same as calling them irrational. Some might call it that, but it...|||The source uses the word logic, which makes my entire point. That is, unless you feel like telling me what this word refers to in the given context, which I don't think you can.    Yes. Assuming...|||No, what I have said does not amount to a mere claim. Nor do I think that there is too little knowledge to affirm what I'm saying. I'll take this opportunity to construct my entire argument again in...|||Read the thread before you post. Many have tried to say that there is an apparent difference between formal logic and 'other' kinds of logic that are supposedly more primordial, but nobody has been...|||Then he is wrong. I have already given him external sources that justifies my use of the expression commonly thought. It is used by official webpages to describe 'T' types. He asked the same...|||I know he quoted me. The problem I just brought up is that his message did not contain anything that contradicted the passage from me that he quoted.|||I take it that there is supposed to be an objection to something I have said in the above somewhere. Where is it?    What is vacuous is the term 'Thinker'. It doesn't follow from this that the...|||I don't know what the line of quotes preceding this claim is supposed to be an argument for.    You said this:    The above clearly states that your argument follows after the :. Since an...|||Your analogy is completely misleading. What I have said is that you need to have knowledge of logic in order to apply knowledge of logic when dealing with the world. This is equivalent to saying that...|||If you had followed the external link that I gave you to support the standard understanding of what logical validity is, it would have told you that logical validity is not a property of premises;...'