Personality Cafe banner
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

525 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
After I started my "The" Economy (force of nature or instrument)" thread it dawned on me that it is only one exemplar of a bigger pet peeve I have.

Many people seem unwilling/incapable of differentiating between improbability and impossibility.

I wonder if more (I)NT(P)'s have this same frustration seeing as we seem to be able to understand and generate complex systems fairly easily.

What makes a theory or system more or less probable mainly depends on the current conditions ( "parameters" that are in place at the moment, like general beliefs at the moment, current state of technology, current allocation of resources,...
These conditions can and will however change, be it over the course of decades or even ages, but sometimes - "when the right stars align" - they can even change incredibly fast. Examples are the rise and fall of communism, most revolutions,.. Ofcourse there are always people who afterward claim they saw it coming or it was inevitable, but that's because you have the advantage of hindsight at that moment.

I find it incredibly interesting and fun to generate possible alternatives, does that mean I believe those alternatives will manifest the next day or are inevitable? Heck no !!!
But I find it equally blind sighted or narrowminded to exclude a solution or alternative because it is merely improbable, at the moment.

I might be pretty idealistic for an NT, but while admiring NT's for the often unorthodox ideas they also tend to sprout out, I have found that their way to approaching those ideas is too "F" for me.
While the idea(l) in itself might be interesting I find more interesting to do thinking exercises where I let the original premise play itself out, and/or to try to create or incorporate theories/systems that can (possibly) bridge the gap between the current state of things and that idea(l).
So I approach it way more from a T stance than a F stance.

*end of rant*
1 - 1 of 1 Posts