Help me with this small INTP argument! :)

[chlywly]

Hey guys, I need some help with a friendly argument please do this straw poll on what you believe person A is saying.

http://www.strawpoll.me/10114640

Thanks in advance

 

[Hadoblado]

I didn't vote.

The phrasing of person A is poor, but I believe what they intend to say say is that they're empiricist.

What they're actually saying is that they come form a conclusion, then set out to support it, but then listen to the data they find.

The first interpretation is more charitable. The second is more likely to be what is happening (because human), whether that's what they meant to say or not, it's much, much easier to start off with a conclusion and then find supporting evidence. I'd love to see some stats on just how many google search terms are phrased in such a way to disprove a preconception, rather than support it.

 

[ruminator]

The second choice makes no sense - he is only "for" something contingent on finding evidence to support his pre-existing opinion on being "for" it? That's redundant. If he had a pre-conceived opinion, he was already "for" it before the evidence.

I chose the first.

 

[Grayman]

His opinion isn't set in stone. He changes his opinion as new evidence presents itself.

The two answers that I can select are not entirely correct. There is no finality in the decision making process and coming to an acceptable answer given the limited evidence is not a finality.

 

[QuickTwist]

He says he bases his opinion on what he observes, finds, understands.

 

[IndigoViolet11]

He says A wording wise, but then he might actually mean B, with or without him noticing. I take neither. It is a trap potentially that someone get you to form an idea first, then find evidence to support it, usually means that they throw away those that didn't.

 

[Terran]

He says he is FOR or AGAINST something based on evidence. Therefore any opinion he forms, be it for or against, will be come from 'pre-made' evidence. As opposed to being for or against and only looking for evidence to support that view. Which would be: "I am for something based on evidence OR against something based on evidence."

The contradiction in the second answer is the word 'confirm', he says he will base his opinion for OR against something based on evidence, e.g: he will decide if he is for something or against something after seeing the evidence, as opposed to deciding he is for or against something and then finding evidence to confirm that view.

 

[chlywly]

Interesting perspectives, thanks for the ideas.