Personality Models

[Urwrongx1000]

"Extrovert Thinker" is a contradiction.

It doesn't make sense. Thinkers like to be alone with our thoughts, to analyze thoughts rationally, reason, logic, etc. Thinkers also don't like socializing in general, because average people, most people say stupid, emotional-laden shit, 99% of the time. Regular/Average people don't have good thoughts, interesting thoughts, convincing thoughts, or even "their own" thoughts. Most people "think" as they are supposed to, politically, religiously, by authority. People are instructed to be and act as they do. They are not independent.

To gain any type of independence in life, you must first have control over your own mind, this is the beginning to any and all forms of Independence. Again, most people do not have, or even want this. "Free-thinkers" are rare.


Thinking is naturally an introverted disposition. Why? Because I don't like stupid people polluting my mind with irrational, uninteresting/boring tripe, which they can't seem to help themselves. Extroverts naturally spew mountains and mountains of egotistical drivel at you, as-if you care about their life, their stories, their problems.

Most people just want to unload their own personal problems and resentiment upon others. That's why I'm "anti-social" and keep to myself. I don't want to hear about your Egotism, unless you have something actually interesting to say (and 99.9% of people don't, they don't even know where their "ideas" come from).

[surreptitious75]

And in a social environment communication is generally quite spontaneous which is not that conducive to imparting wisdom
Whereas in a solitary space one has far less distraction around them and so therefore can think things through more clearly
Though I try to avoid having specific positions on any thing as dogmatism can be an antidote to clear thinking in my opinion

[Magnus Anderson]

Following a plan that someone else devised in order to get from point A to point B is an example of a highly extraverted process of thinking.

The only more extraverted type of thinking than that that I can think of is doing what the greatest number of people think one should be doing.

Less extraverted than that, but still quite extraverted, is following one's impulses. You are guided from within but the thing that is within you and guides you is finished and ready for use. You are not improving upon it, you are merely using it as it is. (This is "unrestrained impulse".)

Less extravarted than that, but still rather extraverted, is figuring out what feels the right thing to do in order to attain your goals. This is an adaptive process because you are paying attention to what feels right and what feels wrong and using that as a way to determine which impulses should be suppressed and which should be expressed. (This is "restrained impulse". People who are into sports use this sort of thinking.)

Trying to figure out (and describe) how to go from point A to point B given a model of the universe is also an extraverted type of thinking even though it's considerably less extraverted than the previous ones. (This is what INTJs use. They instruct rather than describe. They say "Do A, B and C in that order in order to get D.")

This right here is the dividing line.

Trying to figure out the set of rules that describe how some portion of the universe works (or should work) is an instance of the most extraverted type of introverted thinking. One can call it "declarative" thinking in order to clearly distinguish it from all other types. (This is what INTPs use. They describe rather than instruct. They say "If A happens, then B follows.")

This is the most precise and the most objective type of thinking there is. It's why it's interesting to realize that the more introverted introverted thinking is, the more unconventional and the less defined the concepts it employs. At some point it becomes entirely metaphorical, sort of poetic, and at the extreme, it becomes completely detached from reality -- pure fantasy.

This is an example of how one can rank the process of thinking in terms of how extraverted or introverted it is.

This is sort of what Jung did albeit I am not exactly sure where he put the dividing line. Most people nowadays think that he placed it exactly where I did though one can question how reliable their interpretation of Jungian types is.

Either way, you get the point.

[Magnus Anderson]

it's not as simple as to say that that's due to a person's type of thinking
one can at the same time have very strong opinions and no desire to share it
or have strong opinions and be not at all arrogant
or see people around them doing everything wrong and prefer to say nothing
the desire to communicate one's mental convictions is not dependent on their level of conviction
let alone the way in which they communicate it if they choose to do so
or on the work they did to achieve them
there are more things at play

You would do well to present an argument (or at least, explain what is it that you're disagreeing with) instead of merely declaring that what the other person is saying isn't that simple.

Are you saying that INTPs are less likely to voice their opinions than INTJs?

I am not exactly sure that's the case.

Or are you saying that INTPs are less likely to voice their opinions in an aggressive manner than INTJs are?

That seems more plausible to me.

a person's sense of "orderliness" is a critical factor in that
because an orderly person would not accept wrong things happening around them
they'd would seek to correct them

So INTPs are less interested in fixing the wrong things happening around them?

[MagsJ]

-
I find that the defining line between intuits.. and to a lesser extent perceivers) and sensors, is creativity.. something that Urwrong spoke extensively about last year, and something that anyone can definitively confirm, in that they either are or are not creatively minded.
Some NPs may fail, especially early in life, to recognize their creative potential. This may be particularly true for NTPs, who may prefer to express their creativity philosophically or technologically rather than via traditional creative art forms.

I find that the defining line between thinkers) and feelers, is observation, in that they are either observant of possibilities or moods, respectively.
Thinkers and feelers differ in the degree to which they lead with logic, versus tastes and feelings.. this is why T and F are described as preferences.

So it seems, that we are the functions we use or rely on the most, when out in the real world.. for me, that’s I N T P/J, as I feel that anything else can open One up to manipulation and bullshit, lol. When in my comfort zone, i.e. at home or in familiar company, I’m probably more of an ambivert, so in socialising mode.

[MagsJ]

Every introverts existential nightmare, no? in, can you be loved.

[Magnus Anderson]

I think that introverts are more creative than extraverts for the simple reason that the need for change and improvement comes with external pressure and that external pressure forces people to turn inward.

A group of extraverts working together might be more creative than an extravert working on his own but I am not really sure they can ever reach the level of creativity that can be displayed by introverts.

On the other hand, the more introverted you are, the less likely your creativity is going to be expressed, simply because 1) it will take longer, and 2) your ability to sustain yourself on your own will be lower and the environment you live in will be less willing to support you.

Thus, the more introverted you are, the higher your creative potential, but also, the lower your chances of actualizing that potential.

But I see no reason to see intuitives, sensors, feelers and thinkers as anything other than equally creative. The difference merely lies in the way their creativity is expressed.

[MagsJ]

I think that introverts are more creative than extraverts for the simple reason that the need for change and improvement comes with external pressure and that external pressure forces people to turn inward.

From Quora:
Which MBTI personality type is the best least flawed? If you know yourself well, then you will know what you are.. so if you know, you know.

The INFP is the best idealist. The ENFP is the best inspirer. ...
The INFJ is the best protector. The ENFJ is the best giver. ...
The ISFP is the best artist. The ESFP is the best performer. ...
The ISFJ is the best nurturer. The ESFJ is the best caregiver. ...
The INTP is the best thinker. The ENTP is the best visionary. ...
The INTJ is the best scientist. The ENTJ is the best executive. ...
The ISTP is the best mechanic. The ESTP is the best doer. ...
The ISTJ is the best duty fulfiller. The ESTJ is the best guardian. ...

Courtesy of deviantart Again.. if you know yourself well enough, you’ll be drawn to certain colours and not others. For me, it’s the more subtle muted hues from that colour palette.. so blue-INTP and green-ENTJ, and to a lesser extent orange-ISTJ and red-ESFJ, but I would also entertain the blue-INTJ and orange-ESTJ colour palettes.

0AEFFCE9-1914-41C2-ADF9-4A47862B7C13.jpeg (79.35 KiB) Viewed 786 times

Thus, the more introverted you are, the higher your creative potential, but also, the lower your chances of actualizing that potential.

But I see no reason to see intuitives, sensors, feelers and thinkers as anything other than equally creative. The difference merely lies in the way their creativity is expressed.

Yes, which would give them different roles within the same creative job market, due to where their strengths lay.

I once had to manage a very creative but very introverted Art-worker.. it was a very painful experience and learning-curve for both of us, but a very short one, as we both made sure of that.. and don’t even get me started on having to liaise with the more-playful Account-Handlers and what they got up to.

I prefer the world of the creative, to the world of the not.. so yes, a place where one becomes completely detached from mainstream reality, to that of a fantastical one.. a world of one’s own making, and not existing in that of the purely uninventive formal world of the mundane.

Magnus said: ..the more introverted you are, the higher your creative potential, but also, the lower your chances of actualizing that potential. Now where have I heard that before, and just how is such potential actualised?

[phoneutria]

it's not as simple as to say that that's due to a person's type of thinking
one can at the same time have very strong opinions and no desire to share it
or have strong opinions and be not at all arrogant
or see people around them doing everything wrong and prefer to say nothing
the desire to communicate one's mental convictions is not dependent on their level of conviction
let alone the way in which they communicate it if they choose to do so
or on the work they did to achieve them
there are more things at play

You would do well to present an argument (or at least, explain what is it that you're disagreeing with) instead of merely declaring that what the other person is saying isn't that simple.

I explained it... i said there's more at play
a persons level of negative emotions for example
neuroticism as they call it
would play a huge role on whether a person is more communicative or more inward
orderliness or conscientiousness also
a person's level of enthusiasm
it all goes into the mix

i'm already out of steam, myself
i have been posting in that marxism thread
because i had a bad artist block
and that's what i do when i'm not productive
i bicker online over inane bullshit
now i am drawing and sculpting again
and i just want to quietly take my leave from all these discussions
they don't matter to me
i don't give a shit if the other people think they won the debate
because i just left
that says nothing about my level of conviction or my way of thinking
it just says how much of a shit i give about social dynamics

Are you saying that INTPs are less likely to voice their opinions than INTJs?

yes
at least in person
the internet has freed up intps a lot
they can be keyboard warriors now

Or are you saying that INTPs are less likely to voice their opinions in an aggressive manner than INTJs are?

that too
intjs have that little bit more charisma to them imo

a person's sense of "orderliness" is a critical factor in that
because an orderly person would not accept wrong things happening around them
they'd would seek to correct them

So INTPs are less interested in fixing the wrong things happening around them?

in my observations they tend to not be "action" people
they're more of the " i've figured this out, so now i can go figure other stuff out" type of people

[Magnus Anderson]

in my observations they tend to not be "action" people
they're more of the " i've figured this out, so now i can go figure other stuff out" type of people

I agree with that but does that mean they are less interested in discussing their ideas with other people?

I don't think so.

I think precisely the opposite is the case -- INTPs are much more into discussions than INTJs are.

Let us recall that INTPs are theorists. This means they spend most of their time developing theories. This in turn means they spend less time using their theories.

In order to act, you have to pick a theory, deduce predictions, plan what to do and then act according to that plan.

INTPs spend most of their time on the "Theory" step of the process, so it takes a while before they reach the "Plan" step let alone the "Action" step.

INTJs, on the other hand, spend most of their time on the "Plan" step. Even though they are not the most active people out there, they are still considerably more active than INTPs.

But the fact that INTPs spend so much time on the "Theory" step of the process is precisely the reason they are more interested in discussing their theories with other people. Consider what it means to discuss theories with other people. It means to ask other people to examine your theories in exchange for you examining theirs. Since theorists don't have the pressure to settle on a theory -- to stop perfecting a theory -- they are perfectly comfortable with this process. But if you are an INTJ, there's a pressure to STOP perfecting a theory and simply use one as is. So why the hell would they want to discuss theories? Most definitely not their cup of thing. If they discuss, they do so aggressively (due to impatience) and as a way to defend their theories (because they want to move to the next step.)

Since INTJs have less interest in developing theories, they are more likely to simply adopt other people's theories -- perhaps the popular ones at the time -- and defend them vigorously.

I explained it

You didn't. But let's put that aside because as you say yourself . . .

i'm already out of steam, myself
i have been posting in that marxism thread
because i had a bad artist block
and that's what i do when i'm not productive
i bicker online over inane bullshit
now i am drawing and sculpting again
and i just want to quietly take my leave from all these discussions
they don't matter to me
i don't give a shit if the other people think they won the debate
because i just left
that says nothing about my level of conviction or my way of thinking
it just says how much of a shit i give about social dynamics

You bicker online over inane bullshit. That seems like a totally rad thing to do when you have a creative block.

Do people go to forums in order to "win debates"?

Really?

What's the prize?

[phoneutria]

i just done did a fresh meyer-briggs and i got INTJ-A obviously
but just a slight inclination to T over F
it surprised me how big the J vs P difference was this time around
they used to be almost the same
well not really surprised as i feel the difference, i know how i changed

Code: Select all

Mind
This trait determines how we interact with our environment.
    3%      97%
EXTRAVERTED INTROVERTED

Energy - This trait shows where we direct our mental energy.
   80%            20%
INTUITIVE   OBSERVANT

Nature - This trait determines how we make decisions and cope with emotions.
   54%        46%
THINKING   FEELING

Tactics
This trait reflects our approach to work, planning and decision-making.
  63%          37%
JUDGING      PROSPECTING

Identity - This trait underpins all others, showing how confident we are in our abilities and decisions.
   78%           22%
ASSERTIVE     TURBULENT

You bicker online over inane bullshit. That seems like a totally rad thing to do when you have a creative block.

yeah cuz i'm a totally rad person duh
zoots wishes he was as rad as me
he wants to deploy communism so he can seize some of my radness

Do people go to forums in order to "win debates"?

Really?

What's the prize?

that's cute andy

[Magnus Anderson]

well not really surprised as i feel the difference, i know how i changed

Here's a question: is personality type something that exists in time? Because if it isn't, then it follows that your type cannot change. For example, if it is defined as something that describes what someone is during their entire life, and not merely what they are at a single point in time, then it's not something that can change. In such a case, the only thing that can change is the perception of your type. Some vaguish impression tells me that this is how many see it. So you testing INTP several years ago and you testing INTJ right now is not necessarily an indication of change, it might merely be an indication of the unreliability of personality tests.

i just done did a fresh meyer-briggs and i got INTJ-A obviously
but just a slight inclination to T over F
it surprised me how big the J vs P difference was this time around
they used to be almost the same

I've been told that the 16 personalities test is an OCEAN test masquerading as an MBTI test. The "A" at the end is a tell. No such thing exists in MBTI. What it stands for is "low neuroticism" which is something that exists in OCEAN model. Allegedly, this can lead to mistypings.

yeah cuz i'm a totally rad person duh

No, you're something else. Not that it matters.

[MagsJ]

-

[Magnus Anderson]

What's the difference between T and F?

They are, it is said, judging functions. We use those to judge something as either good or bad. I have no idea what that "something" can and cannot be but the general idea is clear.

Suppose there's a painting in front of you that you can judge as either good (= beautiful) or bad (= ugly.)

Which one of the two judgment functions can we use? Can we use any? This isn't quite clear. But I am inclined to believe that we can use any one we want.

How would someone using a feeling function judge the painting? They would judge it based on how they feel, correct? If looking at the picture made them feel good, they would judge it as beautiful; if it made them feel bad, they would judge it as ugly.

So far, so good. But how does that differ from using a thinking function? I am told the difference is that people who use T judge things by following step-by-step instructions on how to calculate the value of any given painting.

That too makes sense. However, that leads me to a conclusion that the main difference between T and F is that T is a self-aware judgment whereas F is a judgment that is not self-aware. That sort of difference is pretty superficial, isn't it? It means that T is an F that is self-aware to certain degree.

Isn't that the main difference between T and F? Can someone argue otherwise?

How about the following: you use your feelings to judge the painting and then use introspection to become aware of the mechanism that you used to judge it. Would MBTI designers, MBTI practitioners and Jung himself (as well as the guy who came up with dual-process theory, I mean William James) see that sort of process as an instance of T? Hardly so, I would say. But that would be mostly because the process of judgment and the process of introspection are strictly separated: one judges, and then, once the entire process of judgment is finished, one introspects. But what if, instead of keeping the two processes separated, one executed them simultaneously? What if introspection occurred as we judged? I am pretty sure they would consider such a process an instance of T. If that's the case, that would mean that T is merely a simultaneous combination of F and introspection.

Feeling, in this sense, is merely what I referred to as a higher level of extraverted thinking in one of my previous posts.

But for one reason or another, F is also associated with things such as empathy. It is said that feelers are better at understanding other people's needs (if their feeling is extraverted) or their own needs (if their feeling is introverted.) But how does this follow from the above?

I can understand the idea of certain people being better at understanding certain portions of the universe (e.g. people) than others (e.g. machines) but what does that have to do with the above definition of F?

Perhaps the clue lies in what appears to be a potential fact that introspection is of greater importance when dealing with machines than when dealing with people?

[phoneutria]

Here's a question: is personality type something that exists in time? Because if it isn't, then it follows that your type cannot change. For example, if it is defined as something that describes what someone is during their entire life, and not merely what they are at a single point in time, then it's not something that can change. In such a case, the only thing that can change is the perception of your type. Some vaguish impression tells me that this is how many see it. So you testing INTP several years ago and you testing INTJ right now is not necessarily an indication of change, it might merely be an indication of the unreliability of personality tests.

it seems obvious to me that when you're answering questions in an exam
and there's ways in which you used to behave that you dont anymore
that that will affect you test results

life has a hardening effect on personality
we close down a bit
and the decades studying the structures in which you live
can teach you to appreciate them
as well as the acquired realization
that the ideas that were very new to you as a young person
are in fact very old and have been tried many times in one form or another
only time and an ever broadening perspective afforded by experience can make you realize that

the saying goes
"If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain"

not to mention trauma
some changes can be so sudden and drastic
as to break the ground underneath you

so my opinion is that personalities do change
but it's more of a flow or a shift, a gradual morphing into another

I've been told that the 16 personalities test is an OCEAN test masquerading as an MBTI test. The "A" at the end is a tell. No such thing exists in MBTI. What it stands for is "low neuroticism" which is something that exists in OCEAN model. Allegedly, this can lead to mistypings.

i'm going to go ahead and say that they're the same thing
there fuck you i said it
but just think about it
openness is the scale of sensing - intuiting
agreeableness is the scale of thinking - feeling
and conscientiousness is the scale of judging - perceiving
two completely different approaches
completely different methods
a theoretical one and a statistical one or lexical whatever you want to call it
that manage to find a very reasonable level of correlation
is an impressive feat in the realm of human knowledge
if anything, one verifies the other
and proves that these categories of people are real things that exist in the world
it's the unified theory of personality
satisfying as heck

No, you're something else. Not that it matters.

you got something to say?

[promethean75]

Never mind that, andy. I never wanted her radness. It was her means of production that I wanted to seize with the dicktatorship of my proletariat.

Ohhhhhhhh

(but I had to take it. If that wasn't a set-up like in volleyball, I dont know what is)

[phoneutria]

That too makes sense. However, that leads me to a conclusion that the main difference between T and F is that T is a self-aware judgment whereas F is a judgment that is not self-aware. That sort of difference is pretty superficial, isn't it? It means that T is an F that is self-aware to certain degree.

Isn't that the main difference between T and F? Can someone argue otherwise?

i don't think it is a matter of awareness at all
do you think that a person taking in "the feels" of a painting
would be unaware of their feelings?
you may be trying to say that those types cannot reason
or cannot put into words maybe
why they like a painting
that doesn't indicate a lack of self-awareness of what is guiding that judgment
it's simply that the affective element of experience has a greater pull
than other considerations, like context, composition, technique, etc

hang on i got urgent toys to deliver

[Zeroeth Nature]

I think Magnus may be right. Thus Nietzsche says somewhere that our feelings are the thoughts we inherited from our ancestors (in Dawn, probably). This would finally answer my question as to the symmetry between the T/F and S/N dichotomies: for iNtuition is basically unconscious Sensing (you're only aware of the result, the Perception, just as in Feeling you're only aware of the Judgment, not the reasoning (Thinking) behind it).

[phoneutria]

i think that's plausible
though my issue again is with calling it unconscious
andy used the term not self-aware
that's not quite it
they're obvious conscious and aware
but the thing that is guiding their way of taking in experience
and the thing that is guiding their judgment and decision making
is not as readily translatable into common language

though one might be able to, if they put some effort into it
so sit with their feelings for a while
and trace them back until they find out the reasons why they feel that way
and then devise a rational explanation for a Feeling driven action/reaction
basically composing the anatomical model of a gut reaction so to speak
but in order to do that they'd probably have to have both intuition and feeling functions introverted (Fi and Ni) so they can bring both of those inward at the same time

but yeah, anyway

What if introspection occurred as we judged? I am pretty sure they would consider such a process an instance of T. If that's the case, that would mean that T is merely a simultaneous combination of F and introspection.

pardon if in am wrong, but introspection IS thinking, isn't it
a thinking inward
so T isn't a combination of F and introspection (which is T)
they're independent processes
but T can explain F with a little help from intuition, as I proposed above
heck T and N together can explain anything

but i like this idea of feeling being a primitive mode of thinking
and sensing being a primitive mode of intuiting
because it is true that we have primitive monkey corresponding functions
to each of our fancy monkey functions

and by primitive here i mean sophisticated as fuck
because these things have been with us for millennia
our fancy monkey brain stuff is just some cool novelty
that nature has been trying out as of late
that shows a lot of promise but it's still in beta

so maybe i get what you two mean by unconscious or unaware
you mean instinctual?

[phoneutria]

you missed out on using "means of reproduction" prom
tsk tsk tsk you've been better

[MagsJ]

Never mind that, andy. I never wanted her radness. It was her means of production that I wanted to seize with the dicktatorship of my proletariat.

Ohhhhhhhh

[Magnus Anderson]

pardon if in am wrong, but introspection IS thinking, isn't it
a thinking inward

I am told that thinking is a conscious process. (That's what I assumed in the previous post. Am I wrong?)

And I believe that when they say that a process is conscious, that they do not merely mean that the owner of that process is aware that the process is running in the background. They actually mean that the owner of that process knows how that process is running i.e. what that process is actually doing.

(An example would be walking. When you walk, you often know that you're walking. But how often do you know how you're walking?)

When we introspect, we most commonly know that we are instrospecting but we rarely, if ever, know how we're introspecting.

So can we say that introspection is a conscious process?

It is certainly NOT defined as such.

(The other potential problem with your claim is that T is a judging function while introspection is defined as "the examination of one's mind" which would make it a perceiving function. But I choose to put this aside because the distinction between perception and judgment is blurry. Must be clarified first.)

Consider trying to discover the mechanism by which we judge paintings as either beautiful or ugly. The first thing that happens is introspection. We use introspection to become aware of the function that we use to map any given painting to a value judgment. In most cases, we are unaware of the internal workings of this process. The second thing that typically happens is speech. We use our vocal chords to express our findings vocally. However, if we restrain that process -- say because we don't think there's a real need to speak (even though we feel the need to speak) -- but without restraining it completely, the result is something known as internal speech (also known as "internal dialogue", "imaginary speech", "talking inside your head" and so on.) Instead of speaking out loud, we decide to do something else e.g. write things down or simply act based on our newly formed insight. But even though we are not talking out loud, we are nonetheless talking inside our own heads because the impulse to speak isn't completely eliminated (it's merely limited.)

[promethean75]

Well I'm sure the sheer complexity of human behavior prevents us from establishing rigid descriptions and categories that avoid ambiguity. It is much to the fault of our language that our adjective descriptions of behaviors superinpose depth and dimension to personality that simply isnt there. If we are just a bundle of firing nerves, our ontometapsychologistic experiences are reductive to quantifiable transsubatomic events. And events dont behave. Ergo, humans dont behave. Ergo, behavioral descriptors are nonsensical.

[Magnus Anderson]

i don't think it is a matter of awareness at all
do you think that a person taking in "the feels" of a painting
would be unaware of their feelings?

They might be aware of their feelings -- and people often are, I don't doubt it -- but what they generally aren't aware of is the causal relation between what's on the painting and how they feel.

For example, would you be able to verbally describe the function that you use to map any given picture to how you feel about it?

I highly doubt it.

But if you were able to not only verbally describe that function but to verbally describe the entire process as it actually happens, wouldn't that look a lot like a mathematical calculation?

Note that "Do you like it?" is another way of asking "Do you find it valuable?"

And value is no more than what we think is useful, perhaps even necessary, in order to attain our goals. Nothing else.

So when someone asks "Do you like this painting?" and you answer with "Yes, I like it very much!" you are merely saying that you think that that painting could be of much use to you. (You might be wrong though and that means there are true and false values. But that's another subject.)

We make such judgments constantly and easily but without understanding how. I don't think that makes them any less mathematical.

[Magnus Anderson]

Well I'm sure the sheer complexity of human behavior prevents us from establishing rigid descriptions and categories that avoid ambiguity. It is much to the fault of our language that our adjective descriptions of behaviors superinpose depth and dimension to personality that simply isnt there. If we are just a bundle of firing nerves, our ontometapsychologistic experiences are reductive to quantifiable transsubatomic events. And events dont behave. Ergo, humans dont behave. Ergo, behavioral descriptors are nonsensical.

You sort of, kind of, lost me at "ontometapsychologistic". (But I kept pushing forward because I heard a motivational speaker -- who popped up in an unsolicited Youtube Ad to tell me how lazy I am for watching Youtube videos -- say that we have to push forward in order to be successful in life.)

I think you're misusing words. You're basically saying something like "If humans are made out of molecules, and if molecules can't speak, neither can humans". That's nonsense.