Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

Ramble Mumble Anything goes, but please make an effort to stay positive and keep it socionics related.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 21/09/2008, 05:01 PM
shadowpuppet's Avatar
shadowpuppet shadowpuppet is offline
the Omniscient
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 642
Exclamation Revolutionary Socionics Concept

I would like to announce my contribution to the field of socionics: The SSS (or Socionically Stable Strategy, modeled after the similar concept introduced by geneticist John Maynard Smith). The SSS acts as a chaotic attractor for certain behaviors, and justifies how each type (no matter how functionally unbalanced) may have a set of absolutely exclusive behaviors (expressed idiosyncratically) rather than a continuous divergence in tendency. This new tool will allow future practitioners to devise theories of cognitive ætiology much in the same way that modern evolutionary biologists often speculate with regard to the possible ultimate pressures that lead to the the development of proximate responses in the field of Genetic Neuroethology.
__________________

u!




Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
Thanks. Now I understand why Prom thinks you are the most intelligent person at this forum.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 21/09/2008, 07:48 PM
king king is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 336
Default

Very interesting. Are you saying that that some types may behave like conditional strategists? Perhaps that someone regardless of their type may behave in this manner? Or have I misunderstood you?

There does seem to be definate crossover potential between the two theories.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 21/09/2008, 08:44 PM
shadowpuppet's Avatar
shadowpuppet shadowpuppet is offline
the Omniscient
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by king View Post
Very interesting. Are you saying that that some types may behave like conditional strategists? Perhaps that someone regardless of their type may behave in this manner? Or have I misunderstood you?

There does seem to be definate crossover potential between the two theories.
It basically says that the order of each information element is the most efficient solution for the constraints of any particular niche (type), and that each type has unique motivations (ultimate) that are independent of the ordering of functions (proximate); it accounts for the way sensing acts differently if introverted or extroverted, if it is leading or creative, or if it is paired with thinking or feeling. In fact, it suggests a framework by which each type can be characterized according to it's own particular motivations (somewhat analogous to Nick's 'basic fixation' formulation of enneagram) rather than the effects of the combined IM elements which are really only in the order they are in order to to satisfy an SSS for that niche, where the subtypes account for multiple but equally valid SSS's.
__________________

u!




Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
Thanks. Now I understand why Prom thinks you are the most intelligent person at this forum.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 21/09/2008, 09:07 PM
king king is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 336
Default

O.K. I'll go translate that into my language and chew it over.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 21/09/2008, 09:49 PM
shadowpuppet's Avatar
shadowpuppet shadowpuppet is offline
the Omniscient
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 642
Default

This idea (unlike MBTI) is in line with socionics trend of delegating only cognitive rather than behavioral significance to the dichotomies - this is good because conflictors do not necessarily have an opposite SSS (IJ and EP are opposites, but they are both static). The way that each IM element supports the SSS is not polarized along a functional spectrum, it plays a unique role in every SSS and every type and socionics is well aware of this. The number of unique, significant forces affecting the socion is certainly larger than the number of personality types; for this reason, it is likely that a number of subfields of socionics may spring up with reference to these different circumstances (just as physics uses Relativity Theory for large objects and Quantum Mechanics for small objects). While exhausting, for typing purposes the consistent and unambiguous isolation and defense of a significant SSS is far more reliable than the highly speculative nature of the circumstantial inductive observations that commonly float among the type descriptions.
__________________

u!




Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
Thanks. Now I understand why Prom thinks you are the most intelligent person at this forum.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 21/09/2008, 10:25 PM
king king is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 336
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowpuppet View Post
While exhausting, for typing purposes the consistent and unambiguous isolation and defense of a significant SSS is far more reliable than the highly speculative nature of the circumstantial inductive observations that commonly float among the type descriptions.

How would you do this?
Why would you do this?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 21/09/2008, 10:57 PM
shadowpuppet's Avatar
shadowpuppet shadowpuppet is offline
the Omniscient
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by king View Post
How would you do this? Why would you do this?
The motivation for this concept is the satisfaction of the need for a reliable, consistent method of typing and evaluating socionic phenomena. It is really just an innovation to an already prominent methodology, however I feel that if it is to be applied behaviorally it should be used in situations where the outcome is failure and not death (evolutionary psychology, for instance, is highly speculative and usually not falsifiable). Socionics seems like a very unique and relevant application whose potential has been only subconsciously realized and otherwise overlooked. I am not proposing a trend in developing individual hypotheses, but rather an entire reworking of the characterization of forces affecting the socion (possibly leading to type and subtype adjustments in the theory itself due to multiplicity and similarity among SSS's; socionics is perfect for this - the built-in structure of intertype relations already incorporates a foundation by which to juxtapose both the types themselves and the sources of significant change in society to which all types must somehow adjust internally and so provides a platform on which to test each SSS). This covers the ground not covered by my epistemological theorem of socionics; IM Elements that are not primarily chosen to suit the most efficient disposition promoted by contextual circumstances (SSS) are likely to represent personal inferential biases (that are either reasoned or conditioned).

The structure will resemble this crude simulation:

Common Social Force -> Unique Internal Conflict -> Interpersonal Interaction Imbalance (III) -> Socionically Stable Strategy
(SSS) -> Model A
__________________

u!




Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
Thanks. Now I understand why Prom thinks you are the most intelligent person at this forum.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 27/09/2008, 12:13 AM
shadowpuppet's Avatar
shadowpuppet shadowpuppet is offline
the Omniscient
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 642
Default

A strong example of an SSS that is fundamental to socionics and concerns the need for easy communication during interpersonal interactions, focusing on the role of dual-seeking functions in the determination of type during early childhood: The undeveloped id awakens and begins to explore the environment. Upon encountering others, the most pleasing IM elements expressed by people (perhaps the ones used by the others to convey understanding and communication or for comforting a baby) are reinforced and become the superid, which is essentially receptive and attentive to the wants of others as the id learns behaviors by imitation and identification (for static types the id learns to associate the extroverted judging of others with itself because it is directed at the id, and becomes an introverted judger; likewise the id associates introverted perceiving in others with extroverted perceiving in itself and becomes an extroverted perceiver); when the id is reproached for not being 'better' at the quasi-identical functions of the superid (which are suppressed in order to give more attentive power to the superid) then the id, which has only IM elements with which to relate and organize, associates the consistently negative functions in itself with inferiority and they collectively become the superego (which begins to take precedence over the superid during the Oedipus Complex). These are constantly accommodated by ego functions, which are used to exploit perceived weaknesses in the superego that eventually accumulate with use. The remaining unused IM elements remain in the id, where they are available at the 'desire' of the id but are not used continuously or systematically. Thus the Primary SSS focuses on the most efficient fixation of the attention on others (which happens to involve dual-seeking functions that are both least resistant and most reinforcing of continuous attention), and the Auxiliary SSS is the exploitation of the superid by the ego. One might ask, 'Why then does not seek ?' This has to do with selfish exploitation. Obviously one extreme in any dichotomy is best exploited by the other (it is not so easy to hide an element-specific SSS from someone who already understands its subtleties and advantages). This tendency is present even in the DNA, where the X chromosome is constantly trying to manipulate the weaker Y chromosome for its own selfish benefit. There is also a symbiotic benefit in complement functions, where positive long-term relations (requiring functional territory as personal space) are naturally selected over others. In a sexually reproducing, socially interacting species as ours, it is not surprising that fitness trends are replicated in the psyche (culminating perhaps in genetic dual-seeking predispositions to aid in sexual selection and conspecific diversity). I hope that from this discussion that it has become conspicuously evident that the superid is ultimately the most important factor in early type determination, because it dictates which IM elements will be used for understanding other people (which is the most important behavior for both young children and for social relations in general, and is also powerful factor in the manifestation of learning preferences and disabilities), and subsequently for adapting to social constraints.
__________________

u!




Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
Thanks. Now I understand why Prom thinks you are the most intelligent person at this forum.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01/10/2008, 10:14 PM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowpuppet View Post
A strong example of an SSS that is fundamental to socionics and concerns the need for easy communication during interpersonal interactions, focusing on the role of dual-seeking functions in the determination of type during early childhood: The undeveloped id awakens and begins to explore the environment. Upon encountering others, the most pleasing IM elements expressed by people (perhaps the ones used by the others to convey understanding and communication or for comforting a baby) are reinforced and become the superid, which is essentially receptive and attentive to the wants of others as the id learns behaviors by imitation and identification (for static types the id learns to associate the extroverted judging of others with itself because it is directed at the id, and becomes an introverted judger; likewise the id associates introverted perceiving in others with extroverted perceiving in itself and becomes an extroverted perceiver); when the id is reproached for not being 'better' at the quasi-identical functions of the superid (which are suppressed in order to give more attentive power to the superid) then the id, which has only IM elements with which to relate and organize, associates the consistently negative functions in itself with inferiority and they collectively become the superego (which begins to take precedence over the superid during the Oedipus Complex). These are constantly accommodated by ego functions, which are used to exploit perceived weaknesses in the superego that eventually accumulate with use. The remaining unused IM elements remain in the id, where they are available at the 'desire' of the id but are not used continuously or systematically. Thus the Primary SSS focuses on the most efficient fixation of the attention on others (which happens to involve dual-seeking functions that are both least resistant and most reinforcing of continuous attention), and the Auxiliary SSS is the exploitation of the superid by the ego. One might ask, 'Why then does not seek ?' This has to do with selfish exploitation. Obviously one extreme in any dichotomy is best exploited by the other (it is not so easy to hide an element-specific SSS from someone who already understands its subtleties and advantages). This tendency is present even in the DNA, where the X chromosome is constantly trying to manipulate the weaker Y chromosome for its own selfish benefit. There is also a symbiotic benefit in complement functions, where positive long-term relations (requiring functional territory as personal space) are naturally selected over others. In a sexually reproducing, socially interacting species as ours, it is not surprising that fitness trends are replicated in the psyche (culminating perhaps in genetic dual-seeking predispositions to aid in sexual selection and conspecific diversity). I hope that from this discussion that it has become conspicuously evident that the superid is ultimately the most important factor in early type determination, because it dictates which IM elements will be used for understanding other people (which is the most important behavior for both young children and for social relations in general, and is also powerful factor in the manifestation of learning preferences and disabilities), and subsequently for adapting to social constraints.
The person who wrote the above is not ISTj or simply constitutes the very early indication of the possible existence of a total clear cut case of multiple personality type disorder.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01/10/2008, 10:50 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
The person who wrote the above is not ISTj or simply constitutes the very early indication of the possible existence of a total clear cut case of multiple personality type disorder.
The person is most likely not an ISTj, you are right about that. It is almost impossible to imagine an ISTj writing stuff like that.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01/10/2008, 11:22 PM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
The person is most likely not an ISTj, you are right about that. It is almost impossible to imagine an ISTj writing stuff like that.
Is it copy paste or just an ENTp flipping out? When I saw the name Shadowpuppet the first time I i nstinctly started to think of myself. But, then again when I read the text belonging to Shadowpuppet I felt embarrassed, like reading a 15 year old child's diary, artificially giving the support it needs to develop fully. Do you feel the same?
We are just kidding SP! No offense!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02/10/2008, 01:54 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
We are just kidding SP! No offense!
I am not kidding. It is very difficult to imagine an ISTj having written that stuff. I don't think ISTjs are capable of thinking that abstractly.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02/10/2008, 03:19 AM
king king is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 336
Default

I like this theory, I'm not sure I understand it fully, but I believe you are comparing how the ratio of type within any given community is governed, to ESS? As otheres have said pretty abstract, but good!
If my understanding is correct, would SSS predict different ratios of type within different cultures/countries etc. caused by different historical/current environmental/social pressures?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02/10/2008, 10:22 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowpuppet View Post
A strong example of an SSS that is fundamental to socionics and concerns the need for easy communication during interpersonal interactions, focusing on the role of dual-seeking functions in the determination of type during early childhood:
Why do you assume that type develops in early childhood? Why do you assume easy communication focuses only on the dual seeking functions?
Quote:
The undeveloped id awakens and begins to explore the environment. Upon encountering others, the most pleasing IM elements expressed by people (perhaps the ones used by the others to convey understanding and communication or for comforting a baby) are reinforced and become the superid,
Where is supporting evidence for this?
Quote:
which is essentially receptive and attentive to the wants of others as the id learns behaviors by imitation and identification (for static types the id learns to associate the extroverted judging of others with itself because it is directed at the id, and becomes an introverted judger; likewise the id associates introverted perceiving in others with extroverted perceiving in itself and becomes an extroverted perceiver); when the id is reproached for not being 'better' at the quasi-identical functions of the superid (which are suppressed in order to give more attentive power to the superid) then the id, which has only IM elements with which to relate and organize, associates the consistently negative functions in itself with inferiority and they collectively become the superego (which begins to take precedence over the superid during the Oedipus Complex).
Ok..you've paused for breath. That whole passage is one sentence. This makes it difficult to read and to answer. You are assuming that temperament development is somehow related to the mothers temperament. That EP becomes IP or IJ results from a static EJ extravert thinker, (which is already a contradiction in terms.) You need to build your case on childhood type development first of all.
Quote:
These are constantly accommodated by ego functions, which are used to exploit perceived weaknesses in the superego that eventually accumulate with use. The remaining unused IM elements remain in the id, where they are available at the 'desire' of the id but are not used continuously or systematically. Thus the Primary SSS focuses on the most efficient fixation of the attention on others (which happens to involve dual-seeking functions that are both least resistant and most reinforcing of continuous attention), and the Auxiliary SSS is the exploitation of the superid by the ego. One might ask, 'Why then does not seek ?' This has to do with selfish exploitation. Obviously one extreme in any dichotomy is best exploited by the other (it is not so easy to hide an element-specific SSS from someone who already understands its subtleties and advantages). This tendency is present even in the DNA, where the X chromosome is constantly trying to manipulate the weaker Y chromosome for its own selfish benefit. There is also a symbiotic benefit in complement functions, where positive long-term relations (requiring functional territory as personal space) are naturally selected over others. In a sexually reproducing, socially interacting species as ours, it is not surprising that fitness trends are replicated in the psyche (culminating perhaps in genetic dual-seeking predispositions to aid in sexual selection and conspecific diversity). I hope that from this discussion that it has become conspicuously evident that the superid is ultimately the most important factor in early type determination, because it dictates which IM elements will be used for understanding other people (which is the most important behavior for both young children and for social relations in general, and is also powerful factor in the manifestation of learning preferences and disabilities), and subsequently for adapting to social constraints.
This whole post of your in it's present form is absolute junk. There is nothing to support your hypothesis of parental figures influencing the development of the super-id. If there is something to support it, can you provide your statistics to support parental-child type correlation?

This is intended to be helpful-because in it's current state it is an epic fail. You move from sentence to sentence with no explanation for your claims, you simply state them as facts and that isn't good enough without evidence to support your claims that they are facts. And you make numerous claims as facts all the way through the brochure..many of them disputable.

Based on what you write, I can only conclude you don't know how to build a supporting case (or a supporting theory), or you are at least partially deluded. You have been unable to even arrange your texts into paragraphs, which makes digestion of the subject even more horrendous.

Last edited by Cyclops; 02/10/2008 at 10:26 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02/10/2008, 01:49 PM
Banter's Avatar
Banter Banter is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Why do you assume that type develops in early childhood?
When do you think type develops?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02/10/2008, 02:15 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banter View Post
When do you think type develops?
I think it is more likely inborn, but no one knows for certain, at least I don't think they do.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02/10/2008, 10:46 PM
shadowpuppet's Avatar
shadowpuppet shadowpuppet is offline
the Omniscient
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 642
Default

From this argument directly follows another SSS which describes the relation of the temperament to the static/dynamic Reinin trait. While dynamic types notice significant changes as focused concrete information with general applicability, static types notice stationary trends as complicated abstract structures pertaining to specific qualities. The temperament asymmetry is often considered among the most confusing in socionics. Because judging is what permits decision, types with introverted judging will be most confident in manipulating themselves while types with extroverted judging will be most confident in manipulating others. Extroverted perceiving accommodates introverted judging by seeking large, abstract, organizational propensities externally that are relevant to the internal structure that has been generated by introverted judging. Introverted perceiving accommodates extroverted judging by seeking small, concrete, communicable indicators internally that may signify in the self what is isolated for immediate notice by extroverted judging. Because indicators (measurements) document changing and propensities (dimensions) document unchanging, EJ/IP is dynamic while IJ/EP is static. Immediately, since one trait over time is best exploited or supplemented by the other, duality is incorporated - each dual judges different things so there is no common ground for conflict.

Element Axis => SSS => Reinin Trait => Quadrant Value

Judicious

- dynamic perception of present changes that occur
- static initiative to exploit abstract potentials
Focus on optimizing short-term by intuitive means

Decisive
- dynamic perception of future changes that occur
- static initiative to exploit concrete phenomena
Focus on optimizing long-term by sensory means

Serious

- dynamic judgment of logical states
- static representation of relations
Focus on ideological objectivity and social formality

Merry

- dynamic judgment of emotional states
- static representation of principles
Focus on ideological subjectivity and social informality


Autocratic

ST
- sense is thought upon (concrete is relevant)
NF - intuition is felt upon (abstract is significant)
Focus on making order top-down

Democratic
SF
- sense is felt upon (concrete is significant)
NT - intuition is thought upon (abstract is relevant)
Focus on making order bottom-up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
Is it copy paste or just an ENTp flipping out? When I saw the name Shadowpuppet the first time I i nstinctly started to think of myself. But, then again when I read the text belonging to Shadowpuppet I felt embarrassed, like reading a 15 year old child's diary, artificially giving the support it needs to develop fully. Do you feel the same?
We are just kidding SP! No offense!
When I chose the name Shadowpuppet I was under the impression that I was INTp.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
I am not kidding. It is very difficult to imagine an ISTj having written that stuff. I don't think ISTjs are capable of thinking that abstractly.
How is it possible to think without using abstraction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by king View Post
I like this theory, I'm not sure I understand it fully, but I believe you are comparing how the ratio of type within any given community is governed, to ESS? As otheres have said pretty abstract, but good!
If my understanding is correct, would SSS predict different ratios of type within different cultures/countries etc. caused by different historical/current environmental/social pressures?
Socionics ESS predicts characteristics for each type as selected naturally by IM and intertype pressures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
This whole post of your in it's present form is absolute junk. There is nothing to support your hypothesis of parental figures influencing the development of the super-id. If there is something to support it, can you provide your statistics to support parental-child type correlation?

This is intended to be helpful-because in it's current state it is an epic fail. You move from sentence to sentence with no explanation for your claims, you simply state them as facts and that isn't good enough without evidence to support your claims that they are facts. And you make numerous claims as facts all the way through the brochure..many of them disputable.

Based on what you write, I can only conclude you don't know how to build a supporting case (or a supporting theory), or you are at least partially deluded. You have been unable to even arrange your texts into paragraphs, which makes digestion of the subject even more horrendous.
It is not my job to justify claims to you that should be obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Ok..you've paused for breath. That whole passage is one sentence. This makes it difficult to read and to answer. You are assuming that temperament development is somehow related to the mothers temperament. That EP becomes IP or IJ results from a static EJ extravert thinker, (which is already a contradiction in terms.) You need to build your case on childhood type development first of all.
I personally do not think that the mother necessarily plays such a significant role in cognitive development (this is an assumption that you made) - siblings are often very different from their parents and each other (I don't even share my my parents' quadrant)...it is actually the socion as expressed in society that makes the strongest impression. By Oedipus Complex I was referring to the triumph of the superego over the id. It follows from the concepts of id and superid and the sequential logic of psychological development (you cannot have an ego without a superego to necessitate the need for compensation, a superego without a superid to provide a standard by which to feel inferior, or a superid without an id to desire interaction), as well as their roles in ultimately supporting the higher functions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Why do you assume that type develops in early childhood? Why do you assume easy communication focuses only on the dual seeking functions? Where is supporting evidence for this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
I think it is more likely inborn, but no one knows for certain, at least I don't think they do.
Because communication is fundamental for personality-selective mate-seeking behaviors, and is the mechanism of the positive reinforcement of social interaction with a dual, which is the most powerful motivating factor for any type. Why do you think it is genetic? How can 16 types result from 2 parents? How about identical twins with totally different personalities? You should try to support your own ideas before you criticize mine.
__________________

u!




Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
Thanks. Now I understand why Prom thinks you are the most intelligent person at this forum.

Last edited by shadowpuppet; 02/10/2008 at 10:49 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02/10/2008, 11:03 PM
Banter's Avatar
Banter Banter is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowpuppet View Post
How about identical twins with totally different personalities?
Yea, studies have shown that identical twins develop completely different personalities if they grow up in different families with different environments.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02/10/2008, 11:31 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Studies have NOT shows that identical twins have different personalities. You get twins that are not identical. The term is mono-zygotic. Infact in true identical twins it has been shown they have the same psychological type.

It is not for me to justify someone elses theory. It is for the person that came up with it. If you cannot even attempt to justify or explain the most basic questions then what else are we to think that your theory is poppycock?

I have a theory, that temperament development depends on the amount of sugar a baby recieves and their relative susceptibility to the sugar. As it stands it's just as valid as yours.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02/10/2008, 11:36 PM
shadowpuppet's Avatar
shadowpuppet shadowpuppet is offline
the Omniscient
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Studies have NOT shows that identical twins have different personalities. You get twins that are not identical. The term is mono-zygotic. Infact in true identical twins it has been shown they have the same psychological type.

It is not for me to justify someone elses theory. It is for the person that came up with it. If you cannot even attempt to justify or explain the most basic questions then what else are we to think that your theory is poppycock?

I have a theory, that temperament development depends on the amount of sugar a baby recieves and their relative susceptibility to the sugar. As it stands it's just as valid as yours.
Well excuse me for saying so, but I think that is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard in my life and I would appreciate it if you would begin a new thread if you want to discuss it (this refers to your sugar temperament theory, zygote personality theory, and lack of agreement with regard to this thread).
__________________

u!




Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
Thanks. Now I understand why Prom thinks you are the most intelligent person at this forum.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2007 SOCIONICS.COM