NT's and open mindedness......

[tinkerbell]

Hi all

I spend a fair amount of my life among other rationalists, my boss is one, and various other people around my work who are very influencial, along with a few suppliers....

I know science is generally a good thing, but these dudes seem to be rather em, er, closed minded to the more "out of there" topics....

I have read up a fair bit on astrology, can chart, predict etc. My boss and various others think it's all hokey. You should hear him when I try and get him to even consider the topic of fairies or elfs or anything (LOL), he just wont even go there.... LOL

Surely being rational means reading up enough to make an informed decision, rather than simply writing stuff off based on no knoweldge what so ever...

Ok My line on fairys is generally around well if you can't prove they don't exsist surely one should consider it. Ok that whole subject area is a little tounge in cheek but there are so many other main stream subject he is just closed off to. I did mange to get him to an accupuncturist at one point.

Intersting that JK rowling, when she wrote Hermoine Granger and Looney Lovegood, she was drawing parallels to Hermoineys text book learning v's Luna's more creeative thinking, which in book 7 was proven to be more accurate than the closed mindedness of Hermonie..... OK I may be over thinking this a little.

Interested to ehar you NT's thought and those who watch em....

Lis :)

[Aimahn]

I think in general an NT's perceived open mindedness has more to do with whether their dominant intuition is external or internal.

I know from personal experience my INTJ dad is immediately and extremely dismissive of anything that can not be measured, his favorite term is "deliverables". It seems as though the only subjects he will elaborate on are those with a strong systematical scientific rooting, if not he will be quick to mention the lack of actual research to support the claim.

I think NT's who are more interested in theory for it's own sake would be more willing to discuss the more "out there" topics. Judging from my dad that would most certainly not be an INTJ. Personally I will be very skeptical when it comes to far out topics but I usually am very willing to listen if there is some semblance of rationality in your case. ENTP's with there dominant Ne are especially good at talking about far out subjects with some "rationality" I frequently have silly wild discussions with one of my best friends who is one.

[tinkerbell]

I think in general an NT's perceived open mindedness has more to do with whether their dominant intuition is external or internal.

I know from personal experience my INTJ dad is immediately and extremely dismissive of anything that can not be measured, his favorite term is "deliverables". It seems as though the only subjects he will elaborate on are those with a strong systematical scientific rooting, if not he will be quick to mention the lack of actual research to support the claim.

I think NT's who are more interested in theory for it's own sake would be more willing to discuss the more "out there" topics. Judging from my dad that would most certainly not be an INTJ. Personally I will be very skeptical when it comes to far out topics but I usually am very willing to listen if there is some semblance of rationality in your case. ENTP's with there dominant Ne are especially good at talking about far out subjects with some "rationality" I frequently have silly wild discussions with one of my best friends who is one.


Ah now there is no such thing as a silly subject.... :)

Actually my boss does go on a fair bit about scientific evidnece and measurability. But 100 years ago hormones didn't exist becuase we couldn't see them. Surely scince is not developed enough to measure everything.

Can you measure "Hope"?

The story of Pandoras box, has all the desease and pestulance being released from the box and the last thing to leave was hope. THe Greeks then spent the next 300 years discussing if Hope was malific or benific.....both are true I beleive......

L

[Aerithria]

The thing about fairies is that the same argument can be presented about them as anything -- "You can't disprove them, so therefore you shouldn't consider them non-existant". I tend to hate those arguments, as the list of things that includes (but is not limited to) is God, the Abominable Snowman, the celestial teapot, leprachauns, aliens, Celine Dion's singing ability and tarot card predictions. I'm a little more open to alternative medicine practices, because while they don't work for me, they apparently seem to help some people. I wouldn't consider them a primary source of aid if you get your arm chopped off though.

In terms of astrology, my rule is that unless a prediction based on it can be proven right three times in a row, I refuse to see it as more than mere coincidence. Even if it did work, I probably wouldn't give it more than five second's notice because really, if a person has to live their life based on predictions made in a newspaper (or wherever said source is), it means that they've given up control of their actions. People who believe can sometimes become dependent on those means of prediction, and it ends up ruling their lives. I wouldn't be surprised if some people facilitated their own predictions. It's like that Matrix quote (which I am probably paraphrasing) -- "The question is, would you have broken the vase had I not mentionned it?"

[Aimahn]

yea theres no doubt in my mind you have to be willing to suspend the "measurable" aspect of science for a bit to make worthwhile breakthroughs, at least in thought.

One of the reason's my dad decided to pursue a career as an engineer instead of a scientist or professor or what have you, was because of his dislike of purely abstract concepts. In his mind knowledge is only good to the extent that it can be applied, if theres no tangible progress or evidence then for him it is pointless.

I haven't read much about him but Leonardo Da Vinci seems to me an interesting character. There's something to be said for having a creative artistic mind, with the capability of clinical scientifically rational thought.

[colmena]

I like to think like this. Like where does our imagination come from? Do you believe in Holism or Reductionism or something else?

I like how it sparks off into time.

[tinkerbell]

Th
In terms of astrology, my rule is that unless a prediction based on it can be proven right three times in a row, I refuse to see it as more than mere coincidence. Even if it did work, I probably wouldn't give it more than five second's notice because really, if a person has to live their life based on predictions made in a newspaper (or wherever said source is), it means that they've given up control of their actions. People who believe can sometimes become dependent on those means of prediction, and it ends up ruling their lives. I wouldn't be surprised if some people facilitated their own predictions. It's like that Matrix quote (which I am probably paraphrasing) -- "The question is, would you have broken the vase had I not mentionned it?"

Now all those unprovable thigns are surely worth considering even for a moment......????

Actually astrology is merely the interpretation of astronomy data, the interpretational range has c.3000 years of history. What you get in papers is pretty hugie, but it is usually based on the same mthematical measurment of the starts. It's not actually reelevant to most of the readers. Real astroogy is based on individual charts, which you should be able to get a similar reading from 3 seperate people, albeit with a range of margin of variance. The subject also had the ability to add in unconventional behaviour - basically it works on the same principal as applied statistics, - a persons forcast is based on the theory that they will behave true to type, in exactly the same way as sampling theory is used in predictive statistics. If 60% of the same say yet then the majority of the population will go for it.

As for people being overly dependant on others to make their deicsions I totally agree, but that could be almost anything from an over dominant partner, to reading sand, to weather a black cat crosses their path.....

The reality is the obsession fo measurment actually clouds their ability to be open minded - In my humble opinion.... liberate your grey matter.... think differently :)

Lis

[tinkerbell]

yea theres no doubt in my mind you have to be willing to suspend the "measurable" aspect of science for a bit to make worthwhile breakthroughs, at least in thought.

One of the reason's my dad decided to pursue a career as an engineer instead of a scientist or professor or what have you, was because of his dislike of purely abstract concepts. In his mind knowledge is only good to the extent that it can be applied, if theres no tangible progress or evidence then for him it is pointless.

I haven't read much about him but Leonardo Da Vinci seems to me an interesting character. There's something to be said for having a creative artistic mind, with the capability of clinical scientifically rational thought.


Measurment is about containment, free thinkign is about liberation, these thigns are pretty diametrically opposed. Yes if you want to formulate then it is good to standardise, but even great cooking requires a certain swish and flick.....

Actually do you think the whole measurment is just the J types trying to validate their controlling ways????? - WICKED Grinnnn..

I can use abstract concerps but I also like em to be practcall and appliable....

Leanardo - yes facinating soul I would think....although I'd also think he would be pretty darn scary....

L

[tinkerbell]

I like to think like this. Like where does our imagination come from? Do you believe in Karen Mortonor something else?

I like how it sparks off into time.

Gosh nothign for ages then I do three posts at once...

Actually I think imagination is something of very early childhood. My mum used to get us to hunt lions and tigers in the garden...great for building imagination, bravery and a sence of adventure, also the ability to lie your head off about the scary things you had seen.

I have no diea what Karen Morton are. .....'splain

I liek sparks tooooooo

:D

Ok off to bed

Nite....

[colmena]

How many translation sites are you going through?

:huh:

[zago]

I don't think NTs are particularly open minded, but they are likely to have different and perhaps stranger tastes than other types. This can lead them to think of themselves as open minded and criticize others for not being open minded.

[murkrow]

JK Rowling's understanding of psychology and humanity is near nil.

on topic:

NTs I know are either very closed minded with their own strange tastes

or

very open minded.

[runvardh]

The thing about fairies is that the same argument can be presented about them as anything -- "You can't disprove them, so therefore you shouldn't consider them non-existant". I tend to hate those arguments, as the list of things that includes (but is not limited to) is God, the Abominable Snowman, the celestial teapot, leprachauns, aliens, Celine Dion's singing ability and tarot card predictions. I'm a little more open to alternative medicine practices, because while they don't work for me, they apparently seem to help some people. I wouldn't consider them a primary source of aid if you get your arm chopped off though.

Look up Sagittarius in the star charts. I'm not talking astrology, I'm talking astronomy; some people liken the image to a tea pot in the sky. To view it correctly in real life you can't be in a city, you need to be south of 55N and north of 65S, between the months of June and September. Actual lenth of time you get to see it varies with latitude.

[colmena]

I'm more interested in the mind itself, to be honest.

Has hard science attempted to explain consciousness yet? Has evolution?

[runvardh]

I'm more interested in the mind itself, to be honest.

Has hard science attempted to explain consciousness yet? Has evolution?

Carful with the "E" word. Lots of intellectuals have trouble with people questioning it.

[Haphazard]

I'm more interested in the mind itself, to be honest.

Has hard science attempted to explain consciousness yet? Has evolution?

Same.

NTs like to question things, and are very discriminating as to what they actually use and accept.

There are lots of things out there that hard science hasn't figured out, but it's too hasty to chalk them up to supernatural creatures and whathaveyou. Also, there are so many perception tricks that people play on themselves that it's extremely difficult to know what to trust and what not to anymore. Almost enough to drive a man insane.

Just catch me a leprechaun and I'll get back to you on it. Okay?

[The_Liquid_Laser]

N is correlated with openness and extraversion is associated with breadth. Therefore Ne is the function that will be open to any idea that seems to come around. ENTP's are the type that entertains the widest breadth of different ideas.

Ni is associated with depth. It will tend to be open to the things that the NJ focuses on. The reason why an INTJ dismisses a lot of ideas is simply because they'd rather focus on something else. If you can get them to focus on an idea though, then they'll be open to it regardless of what it is, and they may even become obsessive over it. The trick is to try to get the INTJ to focus on the idea. Then their natural craziness will take over. ;)

[colmena]

Carful with the "E" word. Lots of intellectuals have trouble with people questioning it.

I'm not doubting evolution. I question most things. I'm quite insulted by your interpretation.

[Frank]

As an ntj I am absolutely open to the possibilities of just about anything. However I do not wish to waste energy on anything that is not deemed useful to my objectives. As I have grown older my objectives have grown thus opening me up to various subjects and ideas. With the infinite what ifs that exist within life I find I am much happier and utilize my energy much more sucessfully by focusing on the areas of interest to me. I think an ntp would be more likely to analyze/ruminate on things such as fairies. For me its more like who gives a #$%#.

[runvardh]

I'm not doubting evolution. I question most things. I'm quite insulted by your interpretation.

I'm entertained by your perception of insult.

[Aimahn]

As an ntj I am absolutely open to the possibilities of just about anything. However I do not wish to waste energy on anything that is not deemed useful to my objectives. As I have grown older my objectives have grown thus opening me up to various subjects and ideas. With the infinite what ifs that exist within life I find I am much happier and utilize my energy much more sucessfully by focusing on the areas of interest to me. I think an ntp would be more likely to analyze/ruminate on things such as fairies. For me its more like who gives a #$%#.

lol dont knock NTP's. we ruminate on those things precisely because they don't make sense, other wise we'd get bored before anything got interesting or practical.

[colmena]

I'm entertained by your perception of insult.

So am I.

[Frank]

lol dont knock NTP's. we ruminate on those things precisely because they don't make sense, other wise we'd get bored before anything got interesting or practical.

No knock intended. I am in no position to speculate which way of thinking is superior. I was only speaking for myself.

[Aerithria]

Now all those unprovable thigns are surely worth considering even for a moment......????

Actually astrology is merely the interpretation of astronomy data, the interpretational range has c.3000 years of history. What you get in papers is pretty hugie, but it is usually based on the same mthematical measurment of the starts. It's not actually reelevant to most of the readers. Real astroogy is based on individual charts, which you should be able to get a similar reading from 3 seperate people, albeit with a range of margin of variance. The subject also had the ability to add in unconventional behaviour - basically it works on the same principal as applied statistics, - a persons forcast is based on the theory that they will behave true to type, in exactly the same way as sampling theory is used in predictive statistics. If 60% of the same say yet then the majority of the population will go for it.

As for people being overly dependant on others to make their deicsions I totally agree, but that could be almost anything from an over dominant partner, to reading sand, to weather a black cat crosses their path.....

The reality is the obsession fo measurment actually clouds their ability to be open minded - In my humble opinion.... liberate your grey matter.... think differently :)

Lis
Oh, I can consider them if I like, but generally speaking, the only scenerio I can come up with that would make their existence plausible is if they never show themselves, never affect anything and never really take an interest in what we people do, so entertaining the thought of their existence on a day-to-day basis seems like a waste of time considering that criteria. If it doesn't affect me, why should I care?

I generally do spend more than a moment dreaming up ways that some things could exist, though after I reach a conclusion I tend not to revisit it unless I'm presented with a good reason for why I should. I'd rather spend my time on the zillion other unimagineable-yet-interesting things that I haven't managed to rule out yet. I mean, if it happens to be that leprachauns are essential to a physics theory I'm working on, then I'll reconsider the possibility of their existence, but since so far that hasn't been the case, they're going to return to the little corner of my mind that only gets brought up if I need a story idea or two.

As for astrological charts, as I mentionned before, even if there was hard proof that they were accurate, I probably wouldn't care. If you know everything that will be coming before it comes, or how you'll react to things before they happen, then what's the point of living to find all this out? I'd rather have the freedom to screw my life up than the luxury of knowing which path is the 'correct' one.

Oh, and I refuse to change my thinking to match yours until you change your thinking to match mine. Open-minded-ness doesn't mean agreeing with you, it means that I consider your point of view before taking a position, which I have already done. And it works both ways, meaning that just because my opinion is different than yours, it doesn't mean that your way of thinking is better than mine.

Look up Sagittarius in the star charts. I'm not talking astrology, I'm talking astronomy; some people liken the image to a tea pot in the sky. To view it correctly in real life you can't be in a city, you need to be south of 55N and north of 65S, between the months of June and September. Actual lenth of time you get to see it varies with latitude.
So you're saying that, considering I don't live on the North or South Pole or live in a city, I should be able to walk outside right now and see it? Or would I need to get out my telescope first?

Actually, for the teapot thing I was referring more to Russell's teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot), which more or less explained why I don't entertain the thought of absolutely everything that gets presented to me.

[SquirrelTao]

What I've observed about NTPs is that they seem to like to play endlessly with the borderline between what we know and what we don't know. But then when push comes to shove they'll be a skeptic every time. If you aren't used to them sometimes they can fool you into thinking they're about to buy into all kinds of craziness. But they're only test driving it.

I only know one INTJ in real life, my husband, and he loves pseudo science and alien type books. Also loves stuff about Bigfoot and Nessie and all that. He doesn't believe any of it for a minute. With the alien stuff he probably suspends his judgment the most but still remains firmly skeptical. For him it's all entertainment, like nonfiction science fiction or something. He also seems to love to watch certain shows on TV like the ghost hunter shows on the Sci Fi channel even though he believes it's all scripted and fake. When we first met I was actually very proper-minded about all things skeptical because of my college education. I would not even watch the X Files. I told him he shouldn't waste his time reading alien books and made him mad at me. The longer I was out of college, the more I loosened up.

[Maabus1999]

As an INTJ, I find myself very open minded, and that causes issues. I like to debate and point out things for people to consider, so I am always changing to the minority side (even though I agree with the majority sometimes). Don't know why, but I like the challenge and to look at all the angles at times.

Of course after I do this, I have to make a decision because everyone gets overwhelmed. Which can be a good thing and a bad thing...

[Enyo]

I have read up a fair bit on astrology, can chart, predict etc. My boss and various others think it's all hokey. You should hear him when I try and get him to even consider the topic of fairies or elfs or anything (LOL), he just wont even go there.... LOL

Surely being rational means reading up enough to make an informed decision, rather than simply writing stuff off based on no knoweldge what so ever...


Y'know, I don't have a problem with astrology. Mind you, I don't necessarily believe in it, but I don't disbelieve it, either. (If it's done properly with the entire chart, not just the crap in the newspaper.)

I'm open-minded. I'm open to possibilities and ideas. I practice a non-mainstream religion, myself. However, I'm not so open-minded that my brains fall out. (And this is why the fluffy "love everyone" crowd refers to me as a fascist meanie poopoo head.)

[runvardh]

So you're saying that, considering I don't live on the North or South Pole or live in a city, I should be able to walk outside right now and see it? Or would I need to get out my telescope first?

Actually, for the teapot thing I was referring more to Russell's teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot), which more or less explained why I don't entertain the thought of absolutely everything that gets presented to me.

Ah, I see. If that one existed it would be Hubble that one would require to pick it out. What would be funny is if there was a small asteroid that size with just the right shape that reflected light from the Sun would make that kind of illusion. I'd laugh my ass off :D. But yeah, you should be able to see Sagittarius still - around what latitude are you?

[Aerithria]

Ah, I see. If that one existed it would be Hubble that one would require to pick it out. What would be funny is if there was a small asteroid that size with just the right shape that reflected light from the Sun would make that kind of illusion. I'd laugh my ass off :D. But yeah, you should be able to see Sagittarius still - around what latitude are you?
Heh, yeah. It'd be more amusing if the asteroid actually did take that shape, just by random chance, kind of like Italy just happens to look like a boot from an outside perspective.

And according to my handy Atlas I have in front of me, I'm apparently a little under 50N.

[runvardh]

Heh, yeah. It'd be more amusing if the asteroid actually did take that shape, just by random chance, kind of like Italy just happens to look like a boot from an outside perspective.

And according to my handy Atlas I have in front of me, I'm apparently a little under 50N.

Do you have good Southern sky exposure, The Archer dips pretty low at that latitude (I'm a little above 51 and it's a pain sometimes if you have a hill or lots of trees in the way).

[01011010]

I know from personal experience my INTJ dad is immediately and extremely dismissive of anything that can not be measured, his favorite term is "deliverables". It seems as though the only subjects he will elaborate on are those with a strong systematical scientific rooting, if not he will be quick to mention the lack of actual research to support the claim.

I will hear someone out. If they have a valid point, why not? Yet, if it can't be proven through certain methods I will definitely dismiss it.

[reason]

I am an absolute sceptic. I am even open to the possibility that I am not an ESFJ.

[FDG]

As an ntj I am absolutely open to the possibilities of just about anything. However I do not wish to waste energy on anything that is not deemed useful to my objectives. As I have grown older my objectives have grown thus opening me up to various subjects and ideas. With the infinite what ifs that exist within life I find I am much happier and utilize my energy much more sucessfully by focusing on the areas of interest to me. I think an ntp would be more likely to analyze/ruminate on things such as fairies. For me its more like who gives a #$%#.

+1 !!

[Aerithria]

Do you have good Southern sky exposure, The Archer dips pretty low at that latitude (I'm a little above 51 and it's a pain sometimes if you have a hill or lots of trees in the way).
I live on the Prairies. I've got nothing but sky exposure. And fields.

[LunarMoon]

NTs are more open-minded than the general population. Intuition is associated with high Openness and that factor governs one’s positive reception to new ideas. How open one is would be dependent on not only one’s type but on one’s personal stats, whether someone is 50-51% on the Sensing-Intuition dichotomy for instance. Dominant Intuitives such as INTJs and ENTPs are generally rather open minded, though INTJs may appear less open minded than they actually are since they communicate with their extraverted function, Te. Rationals also have a tendency to point out the flaws in a belief system whether they believe it or not, simply in a form of mental exercise, so some your coworkers may very well believe many of your ideas but simply aren’t stating it blatantly.

I’m personally open to just about anything, though I’ll rank specific ideas and concepts based on their probability in light of the available evidence. That does not, however, disqualify ideas with a lack of evidence but simply leaves them in a limbo of ambiguity: the status of chance that they might be true but that they equally might not be. I am a believer in ESP due in large part to the Rhine (http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/ESPdoc.htm) experiments.

Oh, I can consider them if I like, but generally speaking, the only scenerio I can come up with that would make their existence plausible is if they never show themselves, never affect anything and never really take an interest in what we people do, so entertaining the thought of their existence on a day-to-day basis seems like a waste of time considering that criteria. If it doesn't affect me, why should I care?
If an organism as large as the Megamouth shark could remain undetected until 1976, is it really so unbelievable for a fairy, something not only small but in some descriptions, ethereal in nature, to go unobserved until now? The giant panda wasn’t discovered until 1869 and the Mountain Gorilla still later in 1902 (http://www.unmuseum.org/found.htm). Would you honestly say that these animals can have no effect on humanity or that you couldn’t care less about their existence?

[runvardh]

I live on the Prairies. I've got nothing but sky exposure. And fields.

You shouldn't have trouble then. How close are you to 50? North of 49 or south?

[Haphazard]

If an organism as large as the Megamouth shark could remain undetected until 1976, is it really so unbelievable for a fairy, something not only small but in some descriptions, ethereal in nature, to go unobserved until now? The giant panda wasn’t discovered until 1869 and the Mountain Gorilla still later in 1902 (http://www.unmuseum.org/found.htm). Would you honestly say that these animals can have no effect on humanity or that you couldn’t care less about their existence?

The biggest problem with it is 'ethereal in nature'. There are a lot of animals that people have traditionally attributed 'magic' and that is consistently unfounded. If these small creatures have 'magic' that makes them not only invisible but also intangible, well... we're going to have such a hard time finding them that they may as well be negligible. We haven't found any other animals that can do this. Why start now?

Another problem with so many cryptozoology animals is that so many places insist that there is only one. This seems a bit impossible, especially if people are still claiming to 'see' them in these places. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense if there were, well, a lot of them? So they could, you know, reproduce? That's a part of the myth, that there is only one, so that people feel special for seeing it (or any sticks and branches that sort of look like it.)

There are too many people who want to believe that it'd be too difficult for these things to be proven, especially because the people who aren't believers tend to think it's a waste of time. Nobody would be impartial enough to do it.

However, if we do find a hairy species of humanoid primates who walk on two feet and live in the Yukon, then by all means, call them Homo Sasquatch. It's just that I guarantee, they will be a week-long blip on the news and that place will be a tourist spot for a few years, and what used to be wonder about what could be out there will be replaced with a bit of useless trivia.

[observer84]

I didn't read all this, so I apologize if I'm repeating or not quite on subject.

P types in general are very open-minded because informations-gathering is a continual process, up to the very last second. They wait until faced with a situation to make a decision, rather than seek out situations that support their decision.

Why is this?

ENTP, INTP, ENFP,INFP:
use Ne and Ti/Fi, meaning they gather external information with Ne and evaluate the information with Ti or Fi.

ESTP, ISTP, ESFP and ISFP:
use Se and Ti/Fi, meaning they gather external information with Se and evaluate the information with Ti or Fi.

Because their information gather function is oriented in the external world, which they know they cannot control, they readily change decisions based on continuous incoming information.

J-types use Si or Ni, supported by Fe or Te. The information gathering process for J-types is base on the internal world, which is governed by their past experience/knowledge. Their decisions create or seek-out external situations, while their information-gathering process serves as an internal guide.

[untypable]

I like ideas that I don't understand. Yet I dislike philosophy because its lack of praticality.

[tinkerbell]

How many translation sites are you going through?

:huh:

just da 1.....

:)

[tinkerbell]

Same.
Just catch me a leprechaun and I'll get back to you on it. Okay?

Gottcha.....tag your it :D

[tinkerbell]

Oh, and I refuse to change my thinking to match yours until you change your thinking to match mine. Open-minded-ness doesn't mean agreeing with you, it means that I consider your point of view before taking a position, which I have already done. And it works both ways, meaning that just because my opinion is different than yours, it doesn't mean that your way of thinking is better than mine.


LOL I don't think my way of thinking is any better than anyone else's, I just get ticked off by instnat dismissal without review of any information..... just seems a bit short sighted...

Lets face it if you reveiwed everything you'd spend your life with a nose in a book.

L:)

[6.4]

Look if astrology was real it would be a trillion pound industry, do you honestly think it hasn't been subject to rigorous scientific testing. Stars are the slaves of gravity right? So if the stars predict your life, you could predict the movement of the stars and therefore predict the future lol It doesn't work move on.

What's next? Fairies? Where did they come from? What purpose do they serve? What did they evolve from? What do they eat and where do they fit into the energy cycle? Are they separate from the energy cycle and everything we know about entropy has to be rewritten? Think of everything we know about biology, where do fairies fit into the grand scheme? Nowhere, they were made up by the human mind, they're just too ridiculous, too out there. Everything is connected, I map it all out in my mind (to the best of my ability) and if someone says something that has absolutely no relation to my map, I throw it away and assume you're wrong.

[LunarMoon]

The biggest problem with it is 'ethereal in nature'. There are a lot of animals that people have traditionally attributed 'magic' and that is consistently unfounded.
Ethereal in a sense of being non-solid, not ethereal in a sense of being magical.

If these small creatures have 'magic' that makes them not only invisible but also intangible, well... we're going to have such a hard time finding them that they may as well be negligible.
Just because something is difficult to see with the naked eye doesn’t turn it into a meaningless discovery. Not since germ theory at least.

We haven't found any other animals that can do this. Why start now?
The same could be said for just about any groundbreaking discovery that has occurred within human history. What makes it groundbreaking is that nothing of its kind has been seen before.

Another problem with so many cryptozoology animals is that so many places insist that there is only one. This seems a bit impossible, especially if people are still claiming to 'see' them in these places. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense if there were, well, a lot of them? So they could, you know, reproduce? That's a part of the myth, that there is only one, so that people feel special for seeing it (or any sticks and branches that sort of look like it.)
I agree, and it is part of the reason for why I have been unable to greatly entertain the possible existence of the Loch Ness Monster. However, most of cryptozoology doesn’t focus on one organism specimen but on an entire species of a kind (http://www.lorencoleman.com/top_cryptids.html).

There are too many people who want to believe that it'd be too difficult for these things to be proven, especially because the people who aren't believers tend to think it's a waste of time. Nobody would be impartial enough to do it.
Agree with the first sentence but not with the second. Science, far from being an impartial field, is frequently plagued with this conundrum (http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html), and yet several differing theories are proven and disproven each year.

However, if we do find a hairy species of humanoid primates who walk on two feet and live in the Yukon, then by all means, call them Homo Sasquatch. It's just that I guarantee, they will be a week-long blip on the news and that place will be a tourist spot for a few years, and what used to be wonder about what could be out there will be replaced with a bit of useless trivia.
That does tend to happen when a discovery becomes accepted as common knowledge, even more so in terms of technological advancement.

[Haphazard]

The same could be said for just about any groundbreaking discovery that has occurred within human history. What makes it groundbreaking is that nothing of its kind has been seen before.

Ah! You got me.

I still don't think this is a reason to go on a fairy hunt, though. If there are any out there, we'll find them eventually. Most of the best discoveries happen on accident, anyway.

[Aerithria]

LOL I don't think my way of thinking is any better than anyone else's, I just get ticked off by instnat dismissal without review of any information..... just seems a bit short sighted...

Lets face it if you reveiwed everything you'd spend your life with a nose in a book.

L:)
Heh, I do review it, it's just not always immediately evident. And considering how commonplace faeries and astrology are, it's not like similar opinions haven't crossed my path before. Present me something that I've never encountered and then perhaps my consideration of the subject will take more than a few moments.

Though you're right, reviewing everything would require a person to be able to sustain themselves without food and never need to go out and make a living. There's just too much useless information existing to be able to consider all of it.

[Aerithria]

Apparently I'm double-posting. I apologize in advance for that.

If an organism as large as the Megamouth shark could remain undetected until 1976, is it really so unbelievable for a fairy, something not only small but in some descriptions, ethereal in nature, to go unobserved until now? The giant panda wasn’t discovered until 1869 and the Mountain Gorilla still later in 1902 (http://www.unmuseum.org/found.htm). Would you honestly say that these animals can have no effect on humanity or that you couldn’t care less about their existence?
If I were a biologist or a zoologist, perhaps I'd care, but I can honestly say that I don't. Sure, the giant panda or the mountain gorilla probably do affect our world, but it's not something that interests me that much. And if it so happened that in fifty years or so a fairy was discovered and their existence as a species was proven, I wouldn't feel foolish, because with the current information that I have, to me it's more logical to remain skeptical about their existence. When I'm presented with differing evidence, I'll re-evaluate my beliefs, but until then, I don't feel that it's close-minded not to believe in something that doesn't conceptually make sense to me.

You shouldn't have trouble then. How close are you to 50? North of 49 or south?
Sorry for the late reply, I actually thought I'd posted a response to this already. I think I'm somewhere around 49.5N, but it's hard to say, as where I live isn't listed. That's probably as accurate as I'll get, unless I can find a more accurate map.

[LunarMoon]

And if it so happened that in fifty years or so a fairy was discovered and their existence as a species was proven, I wouldn't feel foolish, because with the current information that I have, to me it's more logical to remain skeptical about their existence. When I'm presented with differing evidence, I'll re-evaluate my beliefs, but until then, I don't feel that it's close-minded not to believe in something that doesn't conceptually make sense to me.

To remain skeptical is to remain completely neutral in terms of forming an opinion, not in choosing to believe or not to believe. If that is truly the case in your perceptions then we have no disagreements.

[Aerithria]

To remain skeptical is to remain completely neutral in terms of forming an opinion, not in choosing to believe or not to believe. If that is truly the case in your perceptions then we have no disagreements.
Well, I have come to a conclusion in terms of my beliefs, corresponding with what I think I know about our world, but I'm willing to re-evaluate the conclusion if there's a change in that knowledge. It's not quite the neutral skepticism you're suggesting, but I'm guessing it at least partially fits the criteria.

[Orangey]

To remain skeptical is to remain completely neutral in terms of forming an opinion, not in choosing to believe or not to believe.

Hmmm...I don't know if it's possible to really achieve a state of neutral non-belief in anything, though. I mean, say with the issue of fairies; one person believes that they exist, another believes that they may possibly exist but doesn't believe that they do per se, and yet another person doesn't believe that they possibly exist at all. These are all separate beliefs. So which one of these people is the more open-minded? Couldn't we say that the person who believes that fairies may possibly exist (but that they also might possibly not) is not really being open to either of the other beliefs, by virtue of the fact that they have chosen their own discreet belief? By believing that fairies may possibly exist, and that they may possible not exist, you are rejecting both the belief that they do exist and the belief that they don't exist (as well as the reverse beliefs that go with each of those). So I don't know...being skeptical seems an awful lot like not believing (or believing in the reverse position). The term, I think, just carries the connotation that it is not a dogmatic disbelief (i.e., that the disbelief is not absolute), and that should evidence appear at a future time to the contrary, the skeptic would be willing to change his/her mind.

For our purposes, though, I don't think that it's possible to adopt a position that doesn't automatically exclude some other position. Therefore I contend that "open-mindedness" is nothing more than a rhetorical device used to criticize someone else for their beliefs (negative or positive). The problem comes when people hold dogmatic beliefs and are unwilling to change them even when evidence is staring them in the face. That is what I would consider to be truly closed-minded. But to call someone closed minded for not believing in the possibility of some thing or other (santa, space tea pot, a perfect state of communism, the innate goodness of humans) is to engage in a sort of closed-mindedness yourself. You want that person to hold your belief instead of their own, and you use the term close-mindedness to try and bully that person into abandoning their belief and adopting your own.

*Please note that my use of the pronoun "you" is not referring to any individual poster. It is a generalized "you".

[Jack Flak]

When I was five, my mind was very open, but I've learned, analyzed, and come to conclusions for about twenty-five years since then, so good luck fighting your way in now.

[Ilah]

I happy to read your original post. I am INTJ - or at least all the tests say I am - but am into the mystical/metaphysical. That makes two of us at least.:static:

But most NTs I run into will not concider believing in something that cannot be proven. The responses to this post seem to reinforce that.

It seems to me like a high N would make some one more likely to be open to the possibility, but this does not seem to be the case.

Ilah



Hi all

I spend a fair amount of my life among other rationalists, my boss is one, and various other people around my work who are very influencial, along with a few suppliers....

I know science is generally a good thing, but these dudes seem to be rather em, er, closed minded to the more "out of there" topics....

I have read up a fair bit on astrology, can chart, predict etc. My boss and various others think it's all hokey. You should hear him when I try and get him to even consider the topic of fairies or elfs or anything (LOL), he just wont even go there.... LOL

Surely being rational means reading up enough to make an informed decision, rather than simply writing stuff off based on no knoweldge what so ever...

Ok My line on fairys is generally around well if you can't prove they don't exsist surely one should consider it. Ok that whole subject area is a little tounge in cheek but there are so many other main stream subject he is just closed off to. I did mange to get him to an accupuncturist at one point.

Intersting that JK rowling, when she wrote Hermoine Granger and Looney Lovegood, she was drawing parallels to Hermoineys text book learning v's Luna's more creeative thinking, which in book 7 was proven to be more accurate than the closed mindedness of Hermonie..... OK I may be over thinking this a little.

Interested to ehar you NT's thought and those who watch em....

Lis :)

[runvardh]

Sorry for the late reply, I actually thought I'd posted a response to this already. I think I'm somewhere around 49.5N, but it's hard to say, as where I live isn't listed. That's probably as accurate as I'll get, unless I can find a more accurate map.

Haha, I'm a little late too I guess. You shoudn't have trouble seeing that constellation; although, it is getting closer to the sun now. I think I might take a look this weekend...

[Nocapszy]

Hi all

I spend a fair amount of my life among other rationalists, my boss is one, and various other people around my work who are very influencial, along with a few suppliers....

I know science is generally a good thing, but these dudes seem to be rather em, er, closed minded to the more "out of there" topics....

I have read up a fair bit on astrology, can chart, predict etc. My boss and various others think it's all hokey. You should hear him when I try and get him to even consider the topic of fairies or elfs or anything (LOL), he just wont even go there.... LOL LOL

Surely being rational means reading up enough to make an informed decision, rather than simply writing stuff off based on no knoweldge what so ever...Yes, that's true. You've gotten me curious. Can you refer me to any notable texts you've on elves? I haven't found any, and I have a paper due by the end of the semester.

My teachers are the same way :(


Ok My line on fairys is generally around well if you can't prove they don't exsist surely one should consider it. Yeah dude. I'm with you.
I can't prove that global warming isn't true, so I'm going to spend the next four years donating regularly to my local studies for the remedies.

Or what about black holes. No one's ever seen them. How do we know they're there? Maybe it's actually a man in a black cloak standing with a hookshot drawing in everything in reach. How do we know?

I've heard something about these mathematicians... they say they can prove it, but they didn't see! They don't KNOW.