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
  #41  
Old 06/11/2009, 03:14 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzy View Post
Oh, what a question- Is logic binding?....Mmmm I guess at the end of the day I believe that everything is a mathmatical equation put into place by God himself. But every day, we as human beings attempt to sidestep, forget about or out-do logic. Many prefer to pretend that it does not exist than to take time to stop and consider it. I ask myself is God logical and find myself answering yes but not always. But then I am only me and cannot understand God fully- perhaps to God he is being fully logical and I just don't understand enough yet. I do believe in consistency and soundness of theories that if correct can somehow at sometime be proven.
We seem to be on the same "side" on this issue, which indicates that you are more likely an INTp than an INFp (the problems with the INFj hypothesis is another matter). The main difference between us here seems to be that I am an atheist, and that I think that God's non-existence can be demonstrated to be an almost proven fact (though that is also another matter).

The main point of this is that by my reasoning (and seemingly yours too) if God exists, then the laws of logic would be "binding" for him too (maybe the word "binding" is not the most accurate here, but you probably get my point anyway). If God exists he cannot break the rules of logic, and neither can anyone else of us -- that's how a typical INTp would reason. An INFp might reason that logical principles are arbitrary and/or just human conventions or of no particular interest to him/her.

Yet another problem is that INTps have a general tendency to become atheists if they have had enough time to evaluate the arguments for each side of this eternal debate. INFps are more often believers in God than INTps (as are all F types if we compare them with T types on average).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzy
I was raised to be an early bird by a very strict mother. These days it is not uncommon to find me still snoozing away until around 8:30am during the week and 10:00am-10:30am on the weekends. I start to get ready for bed around 9:15pm-9:45pm weekdays and 9:30pm-11:00pm weekends. But I do usually have a small last minute burst of energy and want to check something on the computer, unload the dishwasher, fold some washing etc. And perhaps it should be noted that when I do get to bed maybe half an hour later that I then spend another half an hour or so catching up with my husband. Overall I am a low energy person who suffers from tiredness. Natural early bird or night owl, I am not sure!
You seem to behave like a night owl who gets to bed rather early in comparison with the most typical night owls. Overall, however, you seem to describe a rather typical IP temperament, and my guess based on this information is that your natural tendency is to be a night owl.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzy
Yes and no. If you treat people as individuals and with respect I have no problem dealing with the idea of viewing/seeing/analyzing/theorizing about people as 'objects'. In fact I see it as necessary to further sociological research.
You seem to reason like a over valuer here, indicating that you more likely belong to the Te/Fi than the Ti/Fe divide in the socion. But there is a problem with many typical sociological perspectives in that they tend to ignore or undervalue the importance of biology in our understanding of humans. Social constructionists of various kinds relativize the notion of truth and are generally hostile towards biological facts, which have the result that it is very difficult to remain a social constructionist/relativist for too long if you happen to be an INTp, since INTps are unable to ignore/be blind to facts. This is a too complicated matter to explain in brief, but the main point is that INTps tend to be believers in an external world that exists independently of our conception of it, and thus they tend to believe that truth is objective (and thus facts too). This is just a manifestation of their belonging to the group of Objectivists in the Reinin dichotomies (one of the questions in RSV3's type test is about this dividing line between Te types and Ti types). INFps belong to the other side here, the group of Subjectivists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzy
I am a somewhat stubborn person but I do not like to argue and debate in an unfriendly manner. I do however enjoy bouncing/debating theories and ideas with people who have an open mind, similar interests and a sense of humour. If things look like they are heating up I would prefer to just agree to disagree and move on from there.
It is when you say things like this that one starts to wonder whether you might be for example an INFp rather than an INTp, despite the fact that many other things you say about yourself are more typical of INTp than INFps. So, here is a hopefully final little "test" in order to pin-point whether you are an F or a T type.

If we take the differences between F (ethical) types and T (logical) types to their extremes, which description fits you better according to yourself and/or according to your friends/collegues when you view yourself and your typical behaviour as objectively and unbiased as possible in as many typical situations as possible beginning from when you became an adult (disregard how you were as a child)? Notice especially how you tend to be/behave in conflict situations and/or when you disagree with someone. You must choose one alternative, nothing in between here, please (even though we of course are aware that these are exaggerations -- but that is the whole point, since that should make it easier to see to which group you belong).

T types can be perceived/described as "tough-minded", whereas F types can be perceived/described as "friendly". So, (based on a note in David Keirsey's book Please Understand Me II, p. 334f) do you and/or others perceive you as:

A) inhuman, heartless, stony-hearted, remote, having ice in your veins, living without the milk of human kindness

or

B) too soft-hearted, too emotional, a bleeding-heart, muddleheaded, a fuzzythinker, wearing your heart on your sleeve
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06/11/2009, 03:39 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dumplin
Objectivists in the Reinin dichotomies (one of the questions in RSV3's type test is about this dividing line between Te types and Ti types). INFps belong to the other side here, the group of Subjectivists.
This has been proven wrong time and time again, yet you keep repeating it. This place is depresssing. Why can't there ever be any progress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus
You seem to behave like a night owl who gets to bed rather early in comparison with the most typical night owls. Overall, however, you seem to describe a rather typical IP temperament, and my guess based on this information is that your natural tendency is to be a night owl.
No to this theory of yours. How many examples does it take to show that it isn't consistent? Maybe at least you could speak of it like it isn't fact?

-----------------------------------------------

@however this thread is about: It seems to be becoming rather confusing, as there is apparent cross-overs of threads as to who's type is who.

Inter-type relations are not set in stone, because type is not set in stone. For instance, someone can be IP-Ni, which means the are INTp and sometimes INFp. I am ISTp, and sometimes I behave as an ISFp, other times an ISTp, i'm not rigid and neither is my behaviour, so neither is my type ALL THE TIME. Reinin criteria and relationship experience serve the best means to explain these changes which can occur even a few times a day.

You likely won't find your type through these internet discussions, at the end of the day decide for yourself which is best fit and work from there. If you know your temperaments then that's a good start.

Last edited by Cyclops; 06/11/2009 at 03:41 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06/11/2009, 04:00 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
This has been proven wrong time and time again, yet you keep repeating it. This place is depresssing. Why can't there ever be any progress.
No, it is true. If you don't want to make constructive contributions to this typing process and only want to sabotage, then you had better not posting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
No to this theory of yours. How many examples does it take to show that it isn't consistent? Maybe at least you could speak of it like it isn't fact?
It is not a theory of mine, nor of anyone else. It is an observed general pattern that has been confirmed by neuroscientists independently of me. To dismiss empirical facts as nonsense as you do here, is unacceptable to me. I take it as a personal insult that you are sabotaging an interesting thread with totally unfounded and blatantly false accusations.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06/11/2009, 04:08 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
No, it is true. If you don't want to make constructive contributions to this typing process and only want to sabotage, then you had better not posting.
You and I had quite a big thread a few months ago where it was shown that Reinin and Ashura didn't even mean do divide objectivist and subjectivist in the way you do it, so it is constructive to point out when someone is being misleading, so don't even bother going there.

Quote:
It is not a theory of mine, nor of anyone else. It is an observed general pattern that has been confirmed by neuroscientists independently of me. To dismiss empirical facts as nonsense as you do here, is unacceptable to me. I take it as a personal insult that you are sabotaging an interesting thread with totally unfounded and blatantly false accusations.
So you keep saying, yet you never provide these empirical facts, you just say they exist. If neuroscientists have proven the existence of temperament - or at least that of a dichotomiy of J and P, why do you keep the proof a secret?

Anyway, post what you want, i've raised some healthy skepticism and said my piece on helping tying these people, as I won't continue talking to you dodging out of answering in a straightforward manner, out of respect for the people on this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06/11/2009, 04:50 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
You and I had quite a big thread a few months ago where it was shown that Reinin and Ashura didn't even mean do divide objectivist and subjectivist in the way you do it, so it is constructive to point out when someone is being misleading, so don't even bother going there.
You are wrong and I am right about this, and that needs to be pointed out. Now, this discussion should be over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
So you keep saying, yet you never provide these empirical facts, you just say they exist. If neuroscientists have proven the existence of temperament - or at least that of a dichotomiy of J and P, why do you keep the proof a secret?
There is no secret. Nothing prevents you from searching for relevant material on the Internet about sleeping cycles, "early bird", "night owl", and their correlations with personality traits. The last time I saw the general pattern mentioned was on Sweden's national TV site some months ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Anyway, post what you want, i've raised some healthy skepticism and said my piece on helping tying these people, as I won't continue talking to you dodging out of answering in a straightforward manner, out of respect for the people on this thread.
You criticize what you haven't studied based on your personal prejudices on what should be true or false instead of checking the empirical evidence on the matter. That is both scientifically and morally wrong of you (and many others), in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06/11/2009, 08:35 PM
mihai_m mihai_m is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
There is no secret. Nothing prevents you from searching for relevant material on the Internet about sleeping cycles, "early bird", "night owl", and their correlations with personality traits. The last time I saw the general pattern mentioned was on Sweden's national TV site some months ago.
There is no such thing as proven correlation between Socoinics types and "night owl" made by "experts" so stop this continuous bluff of yours, because you can't convince us of anything like this.
I agree with you that Rationals tend to be "early bird" but it is not a defined trait, and there are no studies on it, it's an inclination as anything caused by sociotype.

If you abandon your demagogy, people might actually support some of your theories, that is, theories we all come together with. In this example, no one can support your sleep patterns assertions as long as there is no such study as you suggest.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06/11/2009, 11:22 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mihai_m View Post
There is no such thing as proven correlation between Socoinics types and "night owl" made by "experts" so stop this continuous bluff of yours, because you can't convince us of anything like this. I agree with you that Rationals tend to be "early bird" but it is not a defined trait, and there are no studies on it, it's an inclination as anything caused by sociotype.
There is a definite observed correlation between some of the typical behavioural traits associated with the rationality/irrationality dimension as that dimension is described by socionists and the early bird/night owl dimension described by neuroscientists, psychologists, etc. I am not trying to convince anyone here, I am just stating the facts. To call that a bluff is another personal insult.

Besides the fact that this correlation has been observed by scientists in other fields thant socionics, I have myself observed this correlation very, very clearly in the people I have typed in real life. The correlation is way too strong to be a coincidence, so I don't really need these neuroscientific findings to support my case; I just mention it since it is interesting and since that of course is just what we should expect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mihai_m
If you abandon your demagogy, people might actually support some of your theories, that is, theories we all come together with. In this example, no one can support your sleep patterns assertions as long as there is no such study as you suggest.
It is not my fault that you refuse to look at the evidence coming from other fields of science. But to choose, as you do, to close your eyes and state as an objective truth that there is no such study -- that is an insult not just to me but to science in general. It's a disgusting stance to take. That you happen to have in your ego block does not suffice as an excuse to ignore empirical facts and general patterns.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07/11/2009, 12:32 AM
mihai_m mihai_m is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 327
Default

Ok, whatever. It is an objective opinion and it is not an insult just because you don't like it. Bluff is the fact that you most of the time assert your sayings are backed up by "studies", "researchers" or "consensus" where any documented person can say that there are no such things, you never had evidence yourself.

Saying a Delta is Beta (or the reverse) is a more serious problem than sleep patterns, don't you think? Their values are antagonist and contrast with each other like black and white. Let's focus on the relevant, ok?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07/11/2009, 01:28 AM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mihai_m View Post
Ok, whatever. It is an objective opinion and it is not an insult just because you don't like it.
You may call your opinion "objective" if you want, I prefer to call it what it is -- a false opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mihai_m
Bluff is the fact that you most of the time assert your sayings are backed up by "studies", "researchers" or "consensus" where any documented person can say that there are no such things, you never had evidence yourself.
In order for a statement to be a bluff it must be a false statement. My statements happen to be true. You are calling me a liar, and that is a personal insult.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mihai_m
Saying a Delta is Beta (or the reverse) is a more serious problem than sleep patterns, don't you think? Their values are antagonist and contrast with each other like black and white. Let's focus on the relevant, ok?
So far your arguments have been far worse than mine, so let's focus on the relevant facts and stop using your inferior quadra typing methods.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07/11/2009, 12:55 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

OK, after watching the video (i've had time constraints recently), I think that Sarah = ENFp.

I don't know so much about mum, she is introverted, I thought before ISFj, although strangely I can see ISFj, INTp or INFp for her, she's maybe a bit more developed as a person so it's harder to lock down her type, i'd need to be around her a bit to say which function is the dominant one, but it's some introverted function, Fi or Ni.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 07/11/2009, 01:55 PM
Suzzy's Avatar
Suzzy Suzzy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
T types can be perceived/described as "tough-minded", whereas F types can be perceived/described as "friendly". So, (based on a note in David Keirsey's book Please Understand Me II, p. 334f) do you and/or others perceive you as:

A) inhuman, heartless, stony-hearted, remote, having ice in your veins, living without the milk of human kindness

or

B) too soft-hearted, too emotional, a bleeding-heart, muddleheaded, a fuzzythinker, wearing your heart on your sleeve
Neither description fits me well. Overall myself and my family lean towards B.
My husband attempted to answer this question in the next video.



Direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOSNaWHvoEg

TIP: How to embed a YouTube video...




Black Book link:


Direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaeeCV8eRr4

TIP: How to embed a YouTube video...


__________________
Lady of the knight

Last edited by Suzzy; 07/11/2009 at 01:55 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08/11/2009, 12:45 AM
Suzzy's Avatar
Suzzy Suzzy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 137
Default

Had to add this Black Books link on. So funny! (Well to me anyway!)



Direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A10PvpbPJZw

TIP: How to embed a YouTube video...


__________________
Lady of the knight
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08/11/2009, 01:07 PM
Marie84's Avatar
Marie84 Marie84 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 84
Default

You both (Suzzy and cafecluz) seem like IEI's, even the way your husband describes you sounds a lot like a healthy (well adjusted) IEI

Here are two IEI/INFp descriptions, the latter is more in depth.

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...ical_introvert
and
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Filatova_IEI

Hanna might be an SEI/ISFp

btw I think it's very cool that you got the family together to figure out your types
I might ask some questions another day, I'm a bit too tired at the moment
__________________
INFj
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08/11/2009, 01:59 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie84 View Post
You both (Suzzy and cafecluz) seem like IEI's, even the way your husband describes you sounds a lot like a healthy (well adjusted) IEI
Possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie84
Hanna might be an SEI/ISFp
Impossible.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09/11/2009, 09:49 AM
Blonde Coffee's Avatar
Blonde Coffee Blonde Coffee is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 27
Default

Hi RsV3, Sarah said you would like me to take this test for you. It's Hannah, her sister here. Here are my resulots. =D

Your socionics type is EII-0 (INFj).
Other possible types:
IEE (93% as likely as EII)
IEI (83% as likely as EII)
LII (83% as likely as EII)

Quadra: Delta
Club: Humanitarian
Romance Styles:
Primary: Infantile (76%)
Secondary: Aggressor (24%)

Function Strength (%) Value ( %)

Mental Block
1. Fi 37 37
2. Ne 38 38
3. Ti 13 13
4. Se 12 12

Vital Block
5. Te 13 37
6. Si 12 38
7. Fe 37 13
8. Ni 38 12
IM Pathways
1. Fi-->Ne (56%)
2. Ti-->Ne (20%)
3. Fi-->Se (18%)
4. Ti-->Se (6%)

Ideal Partner: LSE-0 (ESTj)
Function Strength (%) Value ( %)

Mental Block
1. Te 37 37
2. Si 38 38
3. Fe 13 13
4. Ni 12 12

Vital Block
5. Fi 13 37
6. Ne 12 38
7. Ti 37 13
8. Se 38 12
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09/11/2009, 11:17 AM
Suzzy's Avatar
Suzzy Suzzy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie84 View Post
You both (Suzzy and cafecluz) seem like IEI's, even the way your husband describes you sounds a lot like a healthy (well adjusted) IEI

Here are two IEI/INFp descriptions, the latter is more in depth.

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...ical_introvert
and
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Filatova_IEI
Thankyou for the links. I had not read these particular pages before. Upon reflection and in agreement with the rest of the family after reading these I am leaning more towards ILI-INTp. The social roles in particular kind of clicked, especially 'the encyclopedist or librarian type'. Under IEI-INFp males often think of me as 'the good natured tag along', however i feel they have completely misinterpreted who I am. Woman don't seem to make this mistake with me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie84 View Post
btw I think it's very cool that you got the family together to figure out your types
Thanks Marie84, yes they have all been angelic about finding out our types!
__________________
Lady of the knight
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09/11/2009, 11:49 AM
RSV3's Avatar
RSV3 RSV3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blonde Coffee View Post
Hi RsV3, Sarah said you would like me to take this test for you. It's Hannah, her sister here. Here are my resulots. =D

Your socionics type is EII-0 (INFj).
Other possible types:
IEE (93% as likely as EII)
IEI (83% as likely as EII)
LII (83% as likely as EII)
Cool. Well from these results, it looks like you are clearly a delta NF type Hannah (INFj or ENFp). From the videos, I didn't see much Fe coming from you (where as Sarah seemed to display a lot more Fe).
__________________
Sociotype.com

Increased expression of one function (1) suppresses the opposing intradichotomy function and (2) suppresses the opposing intrablock function (and vise versa).
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 09/11/2009, 12:10 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

It is an indisputable fact that Sarah is ENFp !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSV3 View Post
Cool. Well from these results, it looks like you are clearly a delta NF type Hannah (INFj or ENFp). From the videos, I didn't see much Fe coming from you (where as Sarah seemed to display a lot more Fe).
You would expect to see more Fe from a creative Fi type because the demonstrative function is used more than the ignoring function.

Here's what Wikisocion has to say about the demonstrative function:

Demonstrative function
A person uses this element mainly as a kind of game, or to ridicule those who he thinks take it too seriously. They often intentionally go against its conventional usage simply to prove a point in favor of their creative function. However, this function is used quite often in private, to produce information of its element to support their creative function when focusing on making contact with the external world.
A person will often have just as sophisticated an understanding of this function as his or her leading function. Unlike the ignoring function it plays a major part in a person's worldview, since as the vulnerable function of one's dual it requires especially delicate attention. Thus, when a person is given information regarding the element in the demonstrative function by someone else, they will tend to take it as obvious information that is irrelevant to completely focus on. One will often use the demonstrative function to defend and further support their beliefs made in the vulnerable function.
The demonstrative function is easiest function to use (after the base function) yet often occurs sporadically. When one experiences a problem regarding this function, one must correct it as it does play a vital part in a person's wordview.

(Which is also why various idiots think I and possibly Prom are Ti).

And also how IXFj's show less Fe than EXFp's, and so forth for the other types.

Last edited by Cyclops; 09/11/2009 at 12:13 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09/11/2009, 01:57 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSV3 View Post
Cool. Well from these results, it looks like you are clearly a delta NF type Hannah (INFj or ENFp). From the videos, I didn't see much Fe coming from you (where as Sarah seemed to display a lot more Fe).
Since it is totally obvious that Hannah is not an introverted type, we know that if she is a delta NF type, then she is an ENFp. Independently of that test result and based solely on the video she looks most like an ENXp on V.I., so if she is a T type, then one would have to investigate ENTp as a possibility. If she is a delta type but not the ENFp, then of course the only possible type is ESTj, since she can't be any of the introverted types. She is definitely not an INFj, and she is definitely not an INTj.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzy View Post
Upon reflection and in agreement with the rest of the family after reading these I am leaning more towards ILI-INTp. The social roles in particular kind of clicked, especially 'the encyclopedist or librarian type'.
Yes, in your you are very clearly much more typically INTp than INFp. The picture is somewhat complicated, however, because in some of your attitudes, especially those relating to family and groups, one can easily get the impression that you could be an INFp. But these slight aberrations from what one would expect from a typical INTp could probably be explained by the environment you are living in, and the fact that you believe in God. A likely guess is that your natural INTp tendencies (which include, for example, more cynicism, and more aggressiveness in comparison with the INFp) have been "filtered" in that process and have thereby been "softened". That seems to be a more likely explanation than to assume that you are an INFp, becuase your daily behaviour is nothing like that of a typical INFp and clearly suggests INTp as your socionic type.

INFj is almost ruled out as a totally impossible type for you because you don't look like an INFj on V.I., and your body type doesn't fit. The INFp is closer to the INTp on V.I. (they also have similar, if not identical, body types), so the INFp can't be ruled out in the same way.

But you look most like an INTp on V.I., so INTp is clearly the best fit overall, based on all the information we have got so far. None of the new pieces of evidence seems to be able to change that conclusion, and all the other type hypotheses besides INTp suffer from severe inbuilt problems and explain far less of your test results, your behaviour, your V.I., you attitudes, and your intertype relations. So, unless some very problematic piece of new information pops up, we simply have to assume that you are an INTp.

Last edited by Prometheus; 09/11/2009 at 01:57 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09/11/2009, 02:38 PM
king king is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 336
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
There is a definite observed correlation between some of the typical behavioural traits associated with the rationality/irrationality dimension as that dimension is described by socionists and the early bird/night owl dimension described by neuroscientists, psychologists, etc. I am not trying to convince anyone here, I am just stating the facts. To call that a bluff is another personal insult.
I won't disagree that temperament has been studied extensively by neuroscience and that the observations made by sceintists should certainly be given weight over the purely abstract and non-tested theories that perhaps others may propose. However these tests are not made with Socionics specifically in mind. As such I would have thought that it would be difficult to agree the appropriate weight and emphasis on such studies, where there appears to be a socionic relevance. The highlighted words in your statement are key to this.

If you have made previous arguements for the validity of the association between temperament and night owl/early bird, can you please provide a link to the thread where you originally submitted your evidence and arguements for this so that I can inspect it before making a decision on the validity of you arguement.
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 04:15 AM.


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