About

I’m a Swedish atheist and anti-woo debater interested in the human brain, especially its dysfunctions. Modern neuroscience can explain why people believe in gods, souls, ghosts, UFOs, telepathy, and the like. In my eyes religion is closely related to believing that paranormal and supernatural entities/experiences/phenomena are real.

So religion and religious belief systems are yet another kind of so-called woo thinking, which is also known as magical thinking, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking . I call this way of processing information IPS #1. (IPS = Information Processing System).

This more “primitive” or, if you dislike that word, less complex and less elaborated thought paradigm equals the child’s emotional, intuitive, associative, preverbal, non-logical (or at least prelogical) one. Therefore such an adult person becomes gullible, credulous and naive since he or she is processing sensory information by, particularly, using the brain’s immature, “childish” cognitive functions and methods.

BTW, you can also follow me on Twitter if you want to. There I call myself BB News, and my hashtag is @bbnewsab.

90 responses to “About

  1. Kertie

    You’re on vacation, then be free to reply this when you recharged energy:
    but I need to share my thoughs. Otherwise I’ll forget it, because memory for concrete data (Introverted Sensing) is my weakest point as I stated many times.

    It’s actually pretty common that an ENTP consider himself an introverted.

    Here is why:

    Main point:

    “ENTP: Ne Ti Fe Si

    Even though Ne is an extroverted function, it’s not capturing raw information from the environment as is, like Se is doing. Ne is continually searching for nuance, patterns, the subtextual meaning behind everything it sees. Constantly connecting the dots – trying to peek behind the metaphorical curtain of everything and everybody that they encounter – requires a lot of energy and brain power for ENxPs.”

    Experiences as example of real people (ENTP):

    https://www.personalitycafe.com/entp-forum-visionaries/803642-any-introverted-entps-who-became-more-extroverted.html

    ———————-

    I already knew about the gut microbes and mental health, that would be woo science years ago.

    ———————–

    “Jung’s typology theory postulates a sequence of four cognitive functions (thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition). Each of them has one of two polar orientations (extroversion vs. introversion), thereby giving us a total of eight dominant functions. Also the MBTI test is based on these same eight hypothetical functions (with two opposite functions).

    You should ask yourself, Kertie, if it’s a given fact that there are – must be – 16 different personality types, no more, no less? That is, how can you be so sure there are just 16 different types. Why is it totally wrong to say there are, let’s say, just five, eight, fifteen or twentyfour (choose any number you like)?

    Have you heard of YSWYBIT effect, Kertie? The leters atand for: You see what you believe is true.”

    Why no more, no less? Thing is, the 16 personality types are actually 16 different combinations of thought processes. Each type act, feel and think in a certain way *most* of the time. Using they 4 cognitive functions stack
    Of course people may use the other 4 functions- but not most of the time.

    That is, how can you be so sure there are just 16 different types?

    I was born in a very poor country. And there is not much to say, people think the same and only about 30% are somewhat interest in intellectual pursuits. Which drives me crazy, ’cause a person like me needs constantly intellectual stimulation and have fascination for Arts.
    Thing is 25% are Ns, and that percentage is close to the 30% somewhat intellectual people in my country. Which implies people have in fact naturally inclinations for intellectual things (Ns) or just take things at face value with no questioning (S’s). I’m talking about tendencies.

    That is why I told you in a shithole the gap between N’s and S’s is VERY prominent.

    You may think I know little about people because I am in a poor isolated country. But I have some access (still limited) to the internet and I can compare realities and easily find patterns in common among people of different cultures due to Ni+Fe. I’ve found Mexicans, Asians, Europeans, very alike to me, to the point I believed they were relatives of mine pretending to be foreigners !! (but the odds were very low, and I didn’t know what to think. I was scractching my head). And among other types too.

    I wondered what the heck was actually happen, how people can be so fucking similar?

  2. Kertie

    Even just watching TV shows, movies and series; from very different countries, I’ve found extraordinary coincidences between people, like every type has the same soul, poetically speaking. But I needed to understand the logic behind that.

    Jung archetypes theory (taking in account cognitive functions) clarified it all to me. Seriously, it answered like 80% of my questions about why people are the way they are.

    Remember when I thought you were the author of the another blog? This:

    https://mbtimasters.wordpress.com/2014/07/19/the-harsh-truth-about-personality-types/

    Well, the style of communicating is VERY alike to the articles you’ve post.
    I suspected highly him and you were the same person, but then I’ve realized he is into cognitive functions and you are not.
    See? I missed the concrete detail again.

    I am HORRIBLE with concrete details because my mind is always thinking, but not in a concrete way, it is subsconcius thinking. This happens to every INxJ.

    For example, when people see I am lost in my mind (happens when I’m bored of small talk and then I begin to think but I don’t know what about), sometimes they asked me what am I thinking. And my answer is… “I don’t know. I was just with a blank mind. I know I’m thinking about something but I don’t know what exactly is”.

    Because of that, I though I had some sort of autism, but how can an autistic person be so aware of other people’s emotions and thinking?

    I can’t help but think every hour I’m not sleeping. But many times is not concrete data (I can’t say what exactly I am thinking), but is just… a mind with white noise. But I always knew my brain was actually processing something.

    Then, those blank thoughts sometimes appears in a concrete way in dreams. Prophetic dreams. But nothing religious they usually about very dumb things, like a movie that will be made in 3 years. I mean, a very original movie concept. Or a concept album an artist will made in a couple of years. Or a song from the 2000 that will be remembered in 6 months.

    My sister is also INFJ (but her Ni is stronger than mine’s) and she predicted those Disney live action remakes in 2010. We did not have internet. She just… knew the fact in 2014 a Maleficent movie with real actors would be made and then Hollywood would start remaking Disney Princess live action movies.
    The odds were very low they’ll make a story about Maleficent, I just MOCKED my own sister’s idea. I tend to be skeptic, really.
    Then I was jawdropping.
    Still, she said then they will make a remake of Lion King movie 2 years ago but with real animals. I mocked again. I accepted the fact they can be Princess movies but was a very weird idea that they actually would remake an animals movie.
    Then her prediction come true again.

    This things are beyond the simple probablilistic reasoning that are used to predict weather based on signals.

    I predict things everytime using probabilistc logic based on signals, but this is not that hard to believe.
    For example: In 2007 when I was 14 years old people started to applaud the gays, which is not bad but they were starting to give them too much priority, and even denigrate the heterosexuals. I was thinking there was a probability like in 10 years pedophiles would be claiming their “rights” too.

    And I was right, sadly.

    Most people don’t see the false analogy, the critical thinking/logical thinking is genetic and comes naturally with the child who question everything.

    And is kinda hard to obey without questioning authority, always ask why you should obey, you want to know the reasons.

    That creates a person who easily see though fallacies, like you and me.
    The ENTP have this natural skill.
    The cognitive function responsible for this is Introverted Thinking, which cares for logical consistency.
    I’m an Ni-Fe-Ti-Se with good use of Introverted Thinking (logical consistency) and that is why I value the scientific method. I can see though fallacies too. This is a rare skill.

  3. Kertie

    I look for scientific explanations for everything I see, problem is, many of those explanations are “pseudoscience”.

    The thing with cognitive function is, I just need to observe if a person cares for logical consistency (introverted thinking) or “this is simply how things are” (extroverted thinking”, his own values/feelings (Fi), others values/feelings(Fe), if they have a rich imagination of they are concrete thinkers (N)… and the people who see things taking in account multiple perspectives and subltle meaning of situations or people, see easily the similarities between them and stablish a prediction based on a similar thing happen in the past (that even can’t remember, cause Sensory memory is weak)… is a Introverted Intuitive.
    The people who have concrete ideas and inspirations according to they see are Ne users. Ne users needs to rely on concrete detailed experience.

    ————–

    The book ““Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus” is based on the idea that both genders are very different, doens’t take in account any trait.

    Stadistically, ESFP, ESFJ are pretty common in women and those types are utterly irrational. My father can’t barely think logically.
    So, here comes the myth that all women are irrational.

    Other fact, a pèrson like me is androgynous and online people can be confused about if the INFJ person is a man or a woman. Because we have very alike traits.

    However, they are nuances that are important between those types of people. I think the eneagram have weight on this. Mine is 5.

    This are my results from Big 5 personality test:

    https://similarminds.com/cgi-bin/newbig5.pl

    Big Five Test Results

    Extroversion |||| 14%
    Orderliness |||||||||||||| 58%
    Emotional Stability |||||||||||||||||| 74%
    Accommodation |||||||||||||| 54%
    Inquisitiveness |||||||||||||||||||| 88%

    The Big Five is currently the most accepted personality model in the scientific community. The Big Five emerged from the work of multiple independent scientists/researchers starting in the 1950s who using different techniques obtained similar results. Those results were that there are five distinct personality traits/dimensions. Here are your results on each dimension:

    Extroversion results were very low which suggests you are extremely reclusive, quiet, unassertive, and private.

    Orderliness results were moderately high which suggests you are, at times, overly organized, neat, structured and restrained at the expense too often of flexibility, variety, spontaneity, and fun.

    Emotional Stability results were high which suggests you are very relaxed, calm, secure, and optimistic.

    Accommodation results were medium which suggests you are moderately kind natured, trusting, and helpful while still maintaining your own interests.

    Inquisitiveness results were very high which suggests you are extremely intellectual, curious, imaginative but possibly not very practical.

    Your Global5/SLOAN type is RCOAI
    Your Primary type is Inquisitive.

    Global 5 to Jung/MBTI/Kiersey Correlations:

    https://similarminds.com/global5/g5-jung.html

    The Big 5 is accepted by scientists, but it doens’t explain the though process.

    Mine is the more complex of all. Then, almost nobody understand my ideas.
    Which makes a person prone to anxiety, social isolation, and many disorders. But is just tendencies, I am currently healthy.

    ————————–
    “If you read books about to better understand your marital partner or your friends or your workmates, you’ll soon find out that every writer/adviser uses his own preferred number of personality types to promote his own snake oil sales.

    A relevant question to ask is, Are they all wrong? Or are they all right? I think the best answer is that it depends on whom you ask and what the purpose of the analysis is.”

    -I easily see the BS, as I am skilled at discerning the false information from the true due to my high observation skills.

    Are the 1% of population in the world (INFJ) all they wrong about defending Jung theory, as he was an INFJ himself? Are we all wrong or are we
    in front of an universal truth?
    If the 1% of population perceives the same kind things about human nature (or VERY alike things), are we all simply crazy? Are 1% of population just providing anectodical evidence?
    AM I trying to sell a book?

    I think as the human brain evolve, surely it is very likely to have more cognitive functions in the future., then could result in more personalities. But it will take long.

    • @Kertie: Now I’m back in my home town in Sweden. And here’s a short summarizing answer to the many questions you asked in your latest comments:

      First, most – if not all – personality traits are best described as a spectrum, i.e. we can classify them in terms of their position on a scale between two extreme or opposite points. Cf autism spectrum disorder, ASD. We all show autistic traits. And the same goes for the MBTI 16 personality traits, Sometimes we are more/less introverted, sometimes more/less extraverted. But in the MBTI test there is no difference if you fulfil the requirements of being a, say, introvert person to 51% or 99%. That binary (either-or) way of thinking is typical for the tests based on the underlying Jungian and MBTI theories. It goes without saying that there must be a difference if yoiu are an introvert to 51% or to 99%.

      Second, personality isn’t something static. Your personality is a developing story. Your opinions and types change with life experiences and age, with your actual mood and so on. The idea that your personality is the same all life long is a religious opinion. Without that false belief life in Heaven will become very risky. Cf. the idea, in the Old Testament, of fallen angels.

      Third, all personality tests are flawed because of the questions asked to the testee. The best way to assess someone’s personality is (a) to reach a consensus about how to define a special personality trait and then (b) examine which parts of the testee’s brain that have an increased or decreased activity (for instance more bloodflow or less bloodflow) whenever that special personality trait is at hand. To ask questions only – and not at the same time study the blood flow or electric activity in the brain – is like trying to draw a map by asking explorers how and what the scenery they found looked like. At best the map can be a more or less faraway approximation of the real landscape they encountered. Cf. Plato’s cave allegory, in which Plato claimed that knowledge gained through the senses alone is no more than opinion and, therefore, can’t be the real knowledge of something.

      To summarize my three points: The Jungian based theories are rather obsolete today. As is Freudian psychoanalysis. Today there are better personality theories at hand. And nota bene, Kertie, that doesn’t mean that Jung or Freud were totally wrong. Cf. Newton’s ideas of physical forces like gravity influencing objects.

      What I mean is that believing in Freud or in Jung is like believing that nothing has happened in physics since Newton wrote his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, first published in 1687.

  4. Kertie

    Every atheist use the same arguments, which highly suggests to me the fact they’ve got the same ideas. I know all of them. I got bored of hearing the same thing over and over again.

    Wishful thinking makes no sense. Is only… wish.
    One thing wouldn’t be true because I want the thing to be true.
    Another thing wouldn’t be false because I want the thing to be false.

    I am a truth seeker. An investigator, type 5 is inquisitive.

    I have atheist tendencies but one thing is now clear to me:

    I am more perceptive than most people and I can’t deny my own ideas (I used to do that and it was actually very dumb).

    I perceived the same things Quantum theorists are now bringing it to light, when I was only 10 years old.
    But those things are called BS, of course. Like Jung archetypes theory, which is pretty clear to me is true (while others see confusion, I see pure clarity due to my ability to analize something from multiple perspectives).

    As for your last question:

    The thing is, the genius Max Planck (IQ 190) was “supossely” a believer.
    If this information is true, i wouldn’t know what to thing about “The observer” AKA God.

    He would be a very depraved conscieus. I don’t know what to think.

  5. Oh, I forgot one thing to comment upon. Of course you can be a God believer and still be a scientist. Good science may be defined as a method to develop a theory or model that provides a basis for research in order to understand the phenomena being studied. The difference between the different types of sciences that exist is in what is considered data, and how data is gathered and processed.

    A scientist who at the same time is a God believer has a great(er) risk of misinterpreting his findings. Cf. this article, https://evolutionnews.org/2007/02/does_george_smoot_nobel_laurea/ . And after reading that biased article, please also read this one, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning .

    • Kertie

      “The belief that our personalities are static and never (at least seldom) change is a religious one, which usually means it’s full of woo bullshit. ”

      No, you are wrong.

      The thing is, your brain doesn’t change the way you store and perceive information – THIS IS THE MAIN POINT OF COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS THEORY

      As for you, you are the one that are constantly trying to find patterns and underlying principles, to see future possibilities, to construct theories and frameworks, and to form connections as they talk, write, or create. To others, Ne is what can make the NeTi seem like they have their head in the clouds, constantly having crazy ideas that don’t always seem in sync with reality.

      Ti is what fuels the NeTi’s drive for knowledge and general focus on intellectual pursuits. It comes second in the “functional stack”, and it operates mostly in the background, doing analysis on the ideas that Ne seems to grasp out of thin air. It provides a logical framework and reference material to determine which ideas are logical and which are not.

      Fe is third, and is where the NeTi’s humanitarian side originates.

      I’ve told you that I’ve found all these traits in you – seek patterns to construct theories, looking for a logical consistency for everything and have an interest in humanitarian things.

      ————————————

      “Oh, I forgot one thing to comment upon. Of course you can be a God believer and still be a scientist. ”

      So what? That’s not an important point, I just answered your question.

      “First, most – if not all – personality traits are best described as a spectrum, i.e. we can classify them in terms of their position on a scale between two extreme or opposite points. Cf autism spectrum disorder, ASD. We all show autistic traits. And the same goes for the MBTI 16 personality traits, Sometimes we are more/less introverted, sometimes more/less extraverted. But in the MBTI test there is no difference if you fulfil the requirements of being a, say, introvert person to 51% or 99%. That binary (either-or) way of thinking is typical for the tests based on the underlying Jungian and MBTI theories. It goes without saying that there must be a difference if yoiu are an introvert to 51% or to 99%.”

      You are reasoning in circles, I already responded to all of those arguments like 3 times.

      ————————-

      You did not respond to my message from July 9, 2019 at 8:27 am above.

      You did not reply to my question from the another message too:

      “Are the 1% of population in the world (INFJ) all they wrong about defending Jung theory, as he was an INFJ himself? Are we all wrong or are we
      in front of an universal truth?
      If the 1% of population perceives the same kind things about human nature (or VERY alike things), are we all simply crazy? Are 1% of population just providing anectodical evidence?
      AM I trying to sell a book?

      I think as the human brain evolve, surely it is very likely to have more cognitive functions in the future., then could result in more personalities. ”

      I am trying to make you reasoning properly.

      • Sorry for repeating myself, Kertie. But my impression is you can’t take in and understand what I’m trying to tell you.

        I haven’t time – nor do I feel pleasure in debating this topic with you any longer. I’m not interested in the MBTI test design and underlying ideas.

        That’s the main reason I’m not answering all of your questions. Instead I try to explain to you, again and again, why the MBTI test design is so full of flaws.

        Nevertheless, now I intend to answer two of your last questions in your comment above,

        1) Are the 1% of population in the world (INFJ) all they wrong about defending Jung theory, as he was an INFJ himself?

        2) Are we all wrong or are we in front of an universal truth?

        My answer: Yes,I think that those people are, in some way, deluded. And if they believe they are on their way to discover/detect a new “universal truth” about humanity and the cognitive functioning in human brains I think they are even more deluded.

        As a matter of fact I find both these questions from you a bit silly.

        I recommend you to read this article carefully, Kertie: https://ki.se/en/research/curious-about-personality .

        It’s a rather long article, but at least scroll down to a bit below the middle part of the article. There you’ll find the name Predrag Petrovic appear (in a different color). His ideas about personalities and human cognition are the same as mine.

        Maybe Dr. Petrovic doesn’t answer all your questions in detail, but please try to understand how he is reasoning.

        Let me put it this way. Either Dr. Petrovic is right and those who argue like you, Kertie, wrong. Or you are right, Kertie, and Dr. Petrovic (and I) is totally wrong.

        Anyway his way of reasoning is the scientific way to study personality matters. Carl Jung’s ideas about our personality traits are not scientific and they also lack scientific evidence.

        Now I think I have nothing more to tell you about this. So if you continue to ask new questions belonging to our current topic, there’s a high risk I won’t answer them at all.

        I’m not angry with you, Kertie. You are free to believe whatever you want, But sometimes I feel it’s better not to discuss this topic with a strong MBTI believer. IMHO it feels as if it’s a waste of time, maybe for both me and the MBTI believer.

  6. Kertie

    I don’t need repetition as I understand the core of any idea at first glance.

    The main point of cognitive functions theory is the way you perceive and process information.
    That’s all.
    I’ve spotted the same ideas as Jung about people just by observing their behaviours.

    Do you prefer to think I’m Jung’s reincarnation?
    Or am I a Jung’s duplicate?

    I mean, people with the same pattern recognition system, are able to spot the same patterns, regardless of their place of birth, time or gender.
    Also, Intuition is not magic, Jung’s theory desmitifies it.

    You think your cognitive funcions can change? The signal they’ve changed will be when you pay no attention to logic and science.
    The core of YOUR cogntive functions is paying too much attention to logic, science and a bit on interest in humanitarian – this is , your interest on human brain, because first you aplly ideas, logic, science and then the human aspect.

    “Anyway his way of reasoning is the scientific way to study personality matters. Carl Jung’s ideas about our personality traits are not scientific and they also lack scientific evidence.” – Science, logic, evidence, do you see? You pay attention to those things because your cognitive functions. Ne, Ti, Fe, Si.

    The average person can barely think in logical terms, you are rare for having this skill, don’t you realize?

    The only way to know you have changed your personality will be if you go away from logic and scientific evidence, to being a party shallow person. (ESFP maybe).

  7. Kertie

    It is actually dissapointing the idea that most people doesn’t possess critical thinking (introverted logic – Ti) , and that people with a high scientific and logical mindset can’t understand the main point of a simply text.
    Or it is just lazyness?

    I understand the main point, the core of any idea at first glance, this is why I was obsessed with death, sex, disease, wars, etc., at a very young age (5 years old). I understood it all, I was very precocious because Introverted Intuition picks up clues that other miss and understand VERY complex themes, causing the child to undertand about taboo issues ahead of age.

    ————————–

    But…

    If you don’t think cognitive functions are real, there is no point in highlight the fact that many believers are INFJs and INFPs, neither to point out that book written about the Anomalously Sensitive Person (this concept makes me laugh) by David Ritchey.

    I think a more appropiate terminology would be “the Anomalously Perceptive Person”, if you read carefully he was talking about INFJs and INTJs, he did not mentioned INFPs:

    http://www.davidritchey-author.com/hoa-contents.htm

    CHAPTER 6: TEMPERAMENT TYPE PREFERENCES
    PREDISPOSITIONS TOWARD SENSITIVITIES ………………. 89
    The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ……………………………… 90
    The Intorverted Intuitive (IN–) ……………………………….. 92
    The Intuitive Feeler (-NF-) & Intuitive Thinker (-NT-) ……
    94
    Judging (—J) & Perceiving (—P) ……………………………… 96
    The INFJ & INTJ …………………………………………………….. 97
    Chapter Summary …………………………………………………. 103

    The INTJs are NOT likely to be females.

    The Anomalously *Perceptive* Persons are NOT likely to be fair skinned and blue eyed, there is a lot of Asians, Blacks and Native American who are Anomalously Perceptive Persons.

    Be artists, yes, because INFJs and INTJs notices patterns that other people miss. Patterns in musical notes, colours, geometry, yes it is because we have our senses sharpened. This can make us very artistic people.

    Nurture is not linked with having Intuition, because having Introverted Intuition makes a person a born phylospher/deep thinker from a early age as I stated above.
    So (as a remark, not main point), it is strange the fact that are such deep thinkers in shithole countries, the average European can’t think of poor Latinoamericans being deep thinkers, most Europeans thinks we are all uncivilized monkeys that only think of parties.

    Think of that, our enviroment, by logic, should make us very primitive persons, but that’s not the case. We are deep thinkers without our environment making us dumb. Maybe some of them are less cultured, but definitively not dumb.
    So, environment doesn’t really matter to being a born deep thinker.

    Most people around the world get stuck in traditions and the known (Si users, the cognitive functions of traditions and the familiar/and feel disgust for the unknown) and they are highly prejudiced about people from poor countries. This is, most people are Si users.
    They (most Europeans) think we (Latinos) all are primitive people.
    This is also the cause of xenophobia around the world, they fear the unknown, the unfamiliar. Utterly irrational.

    Gosh, I wish most people would have the High Perception about the world like I have, this is, I wish most people could understand the world as I do. Being Ni users, I mean.
    Xenophobia would exist, maybe, but at a very low level.

    “5. The Anomalously Sensitive Person is likely to: have unusually sensitive immune systems, be highly reactive/responsive to sensory stimuli, exhibit learning/attention styles that differ from the norm, be very attuned to the emotions of both themselves and others, be especially facile at accessing Altered States of Consciousness and to frequently have Transpersonal (“metaphysical,” “paranormal,” “psychic”) Experiences.”

    Yes, many phylosophers (Ni users) in fact talked about metaphysics.

    So, in the case of Liza:

    http://www.davidritchey-author.com/hoa-chapter1.htm

    “About her Experiences of Transpersonal Perception:

    Déjà Vu—the strong feeling that some person, place, or situation has been experienced before, even though the experience is apparently occurring for the first time.
    Synchronicity—the occurrence of a pattern of significant events, apparently causally unrelated, the connections among which seem to be too meaningful to be mere coincidence.
    Telepathy—transmission and/or reception of thoughts with another person without normal communication or clues.
    Precognition—accurate knowledge of an event that will take place in the future and that could not be predicted by logical means.
    Psychic Dream—a dream that matches in detail an event the dreamer did not know about, or have reason to expect, at the time of the dream.
    Clairvoyance (including clairaudience, clairsentience, claircognizance)—accurate awareness of events that are not available to usual sensory impressions.”

    My sister have all of these, but she isn’t a mentally ill person at all.

    See, creative people may have a major propension to be mentally ill (many artist and scientist were definitively NOT healthy) but no ALL creative people are mentally ill, that isn’t the case.

    The author David Ritchey had jumping to conclusions very quickly and did not investigate in depth.

    I will go to talk with another Ni users and leave you, as you seem highly illiterate. It’s worry that logical people can’t pick up the meaning of the idea. And only have a mind to understand science, I wish I am wrong.

  8. Kertie

    Many “beliefs” are actually discoverings made by inductive reasoning, like the Jung theory.

    But science takes more importance on deductive reasoning and is way reduccitonist.

    The reason why Jung’s theory is not accepted by science is because science rejects inductive process in general.

    Jung formuled his theory based on inductive process.

    Many others scientist formuled theories (not accepted by official science) based on inductive process.

    Many “MBTI believers”(and other supposed pseudosciences) used the same process (induction) to check Jung’s theory is right.

    The problem with cognitive functions theory is the same with cerebral laterality: clashes with cerebral plasticity.

    We don’t know even what conscious is produced from.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s