'Thinkers' often claim to be 'logical' or 'rational' without possessing any kind of knowledge of either formal logic or mathematics. If being 'logical' or 'rational in the capacity of a 'Thinker' does not amount to exercising formal logical or mathematical knowledge, then the term 'Thinker' is completely vacuous.

As far as I can tell, the only way to address this argument is to say that 'Thinkers' somehow have knowledge of these systems without being taught about them. This is an insanely strong claim that I doubt many would endorse. Even if they did, it would be an insurmountable task to justify it. It is of course entirely possible, but alas an entirely different point, to say that someone may have a

*capacity*for formal logic or mathematics. It does not follow from that one has a great mathematical aptitude that one is somehow able to do mathematics. The latter evidently requires teaching.

An implication of this problem is therefore that 'Thinkers' must be taught how to 'Think' before they can be 'Thinkers'. But this is absurd, because one does not derive one's psychological type by virtue of learning about some random piece of information. The conclusion must thus be that there is either no such thing as a 'Thinker' psychological type, or the term 'Thinker' really means nothing at all.

By 'Thinker' I mean any MBTI description that contains a 'T'.

Edit: Because it's apparently very difficult to understand the above post, here's a summary of the idea:

Sequence said:The thesis is that the 'Thinker' predication either means nothing, or is not a psychological function.

The argument is that if 'Thinking' amounts to use of mathematical or formal logical reasoning, then it is not a psychological type because it is reducible to acquired skills. If, on the other hand, 'Thinking' is neither use of mathematical or formal logical reasoning, then the term means nothing whatsoever.