Edmond Zedo

Of course we've been over it, and of course I've answered them, but the problem is that we're arguing different things. I'm arguing that I've come up with ideas which should be tested, and you're effectively saying "But I don't like your ideas." Which is irrelevant, and of absolutely no concern to me. For the I-don't-know-how-manieth-time, I'm not trying to convince anyone it's accurate here, with respect to science. That's impossible, and laughable, because people typing to each other on the net is not science. I've said that before: It may demonstrate a biological foundation for the types. Which, in turn, would validate 16-type, which, in turn, would please me. I'm certainly not looking for philosophical understanding here, and forgive me for saying it seems that would be a fool's errand. I'm interested in science as a tool, not as a fetish. "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." --Albert Einstein Hence my interest in science. Add: And please tell me how I failed to adhere to the "tenets of the scientific method" by merely stating a hypothesis. I can assure you it's impossible, because I haven't. Some are presenting useful information, but those exchanges have been short, because there is no needless conflict. The continuing, useless exchanges here have been based on irrelevant opinion, which I only respond to as a matter of pride.

So don't. I've already responded to all of the above, repeatedly. Firstly, I said the operational definition of S/N is what the experiments would be based on, not some ethereal idea of mine about what they really are. Second, I said that I don't have personal knowledge of identical twins with an S/N pref. difference. Third, I said that I only suppose the physical traits are trends. Enough said indeed. Yeah, above. No, I'm well aware of all of your criticism, such as that equivalent to a., "It's too much like phrenology to even be thought about." And b., "A hypothesis must be supported by evidence." Which I've already quite cleanly dealt with, by saying, firstly, that a., That's an appeal to ignorance, and hardly how discoveries are made, and b., A hypothesis is a hypothesis because it's not supported by evidence, yet. I can type through photos, sometimes, but it's far from reliable. At this point, I couldn't make a reasonable guess at someone's type if you only gave me some physical measurements. There are commonalites due to other causes, but those should be insignificant after isolation. For example, if 150 people are tested for type, and some physical dimension is measured, there either will or won't be an apparent relationship between the two.

Either you pay attention to it, or you don't. When I claimed that perhaps you lack the data necessary to claim bias on my part, you suddenly claimed that you were very knowledgeable. It's entirely relevant.

I'll take care of it then. This was regarding "Jung's types," in response to a question tar asked: Being that every 16-type system is interwoven with Jung's types in one way or another, it seems to me that I've discovered a contradiction of sorts.

16-type specifically? If so, make a counter-argument, because there's nothing I'd rather do than get to the reality of it.

What's something you're very familiar with? Let's say, hypothetically, it's Kung Fu, the ancient Chinese martial art. Now, say you've observed people practice Kung Fu endlessly, throughout your life, and have observed its effectiveness against, say, unskilled knife attacks. You might propose that Kung Fu is effective against goons with knives, based on your observations. If I know comparatively very little about Kung Fu, and have not observed it in action, how could I possibly judge whether or not you are biased in your propositions?

The null hypothesis would include the proposition that there is no correlation between the type assignment and the physical characteristics. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well, as I believe you're aware, I don't use Jung's functions as he wrote them, or how they've been perverted (but not admittedly so) by MBTI. So, "N/A" on the first section. But I have noticed that people of X type just tend to look like many others of X type, moreso than they look like Y type. It's only recently I've been able to tentatively conclude on certain, specific differences between X and Y types. The informal data-collection period has been quite long, and I'll keep looking for trends.

That's not required. It would be "nice to know," someday, but isn't among my worries. I dont disagree with any of that, and that is indeed the question.

AzurePhoenix: There are naturally countless things which can affect personality, but I consider types under 16-type to be a framework for how people think. tar: I think "no" to all that, what can I say. Not to say you're definitely wrong, esp. about determining types visually, but I have too much swimming around in my head already to take on a bunch of someone else's ideas right now. ..Oh, P.S. I agree with the last sentence. Sorry, I'm a bit groggy atm.

No. Development is physical, just as it's mental. And besides, as I've previously noted, I don't know if the S/N preference is genetic or not. (Note that the twins in question were both f'n N.)

Unless those I've analyzed have completely misrepresented themselves, which I very much doubt, then yes, they can have different types under the 16-type systems. I'm quite familiar with an ENFP-ENFJ twin set, for example. That's self-assessment (Including testing, I assume), in addition to my personal assessment. I find it intriguing that the appearance of each of them matches more closely with other ENFJs and ENFPs, respectively. This leads me to believe development is at least as responsible as genetics, overall.

Well, muscle size increase is certainly one way which the mind, from motivation to practice, can affect the body. But for the mind to be able to increase the size of part of the brain, that's something I haven't seen evidenced. Time will tell, I'm sure. Speaking of the "excluded middle," I was in stats class today, listening to "teach" go on about how everything must be converted to a unimodal curve, and I can't quite wrap my head around it. There are behaviors which are fundamentally bimodal, on a population basis, and I can't figure it out. Perhaps we'll get to that later in the semester. That's an aside, but whatever.

I was speaking informally, but it still seems "much more likely" to me, based on general knowledge. The alternative would be that thought directed the structure of the cranium. It at least sounds more far-fetched.

JS: The goal is of course to find meaningful evidence, if it exists. The question of whether I pulled the hypothesis completely out of thin air, or based it on the best informal observations I could make--That's unknown to you, if you haven't performed similar analyses. If what I've claimed to notice was obvious to everyone, I wouldn't need to attempt to illustrate its validity with scientific experimentation, right? As to causation, I can only assume that the physical would cause the mental, if any such correlation is found. In any case, finding the correlation is priority one.

I know, tar. The ideas were initially based on those who have both tested as and self-identified as a given type, thus "preferring" S or N. A scientific study would have to be based on something rigorous such as testing, as I've said. The fact that I carry out and discuss subjective analysis of my own is incidental. It may aid in my personal understanding (Which I can relay to others, who may take or leave it), but it will not be directly involved in real, scientific tests. (Thanks.) As I say to tar above, I know this, and with an intention to convert subjective conclusions to objective conclusions, I must temporarily discard what I "know," and rely on "standards," a.k.a. repeatable procedures which are as mechanical as possible. That I don't go into the potential experimental procedures greatly here does not imply that I am not aware of what they must be, nor that I know not how to create them. In an attempt to move away from my opinion of myself, those I'm studying under are fond of my clean and precise ideas for experimental procedures (Though only in a classroom/training scenario at the moment).

No one has offered anything which even attempts to specifically discount it. "It doesn't sound right" has no bearing on its potential accuracy, of course. Have you analyzed the faces of many people who have tested as various different types, and found them all to be the same? That would be a specific observational disagreement. All I can propose is that it's plainly unscientific to claim inaccuracy based on personal ignorance of the data I've used to create the hypotheses.

You obviously don't know what a hypothesis is. I have not once defended the hypotheses as philosophical! Other issues about type have been discussed in this thread, and only then have I claimed philosophical grounds for anything. The hypotheses are based on observation and intuition, as all hypotheses initially are. And they were always intended for practical experimentation. That wasn't regarding the hypothesis! That was about a question someone asked me about typing people in general. What are you doing? Just let me know when you are able to decipher conversational items which happen to be in the thread from the actual, scientific hypotheses. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged^The above is the absolute perfect example of contrary relations, for any interested parties. Does this seem accurate?: http://www.socionics.com/rel/cnf.htm

Let me state something I've stated before, primarily for the benefit of the audience, since you've ignored it before: When I say hypothesis, I mean hypothesis. It's something which must be tested with experimentation. You repeatedly request evidence which I cannot provide without experimentation, as if we can debate and resolve a scientific matter philosophically. You'll be hard-pressed to find someone more adept at debating philosophical logic, but it just so happens that skill is not relevant to this matter. You are, quite frankly, disapproving of the exact kind of intuition which has resulted in some of the greatest scientific finds of all time. I'll take a wild stab in the dark here, play clairvoyant, and divine that if you're a practicing research scientist, you aren't heavily involved in hypothesis generation. More of a "standards" person, right?

I can't negate your idea, of course, all I can say is that it's not in line with my ideas, and we must therefore take different paths. Or so it seems. I have said that the methodology for determining preference will most likely have to be a questionnaire, as opposed to subjective analysis, regardless of the difference I perceive in validity. You're not even reading my words. To this moment, you're still just disagreeing with your initial idea of what you THOUGHT I was implying. You were wrong, and quite frankly, we're getting nowhere, just as I predicted, based on our personality differences. Which you discard as irrelevant, also quite according to type. I can only hope that someone out there can see how ridiculous it is. You never will. Since you've already stated every disagreement you have with my hypotheses, there's no logical reason for you to restate them, again and again.

When something appears definable, I attempt to define it. Unlike many others, I don't try to force anything. What I know is that there are people who please me and people who dont, and that the people who don't please me, please other people. Oh, you're quite right, but if all of these individual opinions, etc. stem from several different categories of methodology, to understand the methodologies is to better understand the individuals. That's the point. I vehemently beg to differ. I've seen thousands of others "judge" people, and with often rather inexpert results. That's easily taken care of in the test parameters, the operational definitions. Indeed.

That's not true, for the tenth time. Comparing "some aspect" of physicality with "some aspect" of mentality, and finding no correlation, in no way proves that there is no correlation at all between the physical body and the mind. What you're doing here is traditionally called "appealing to ignorance." Thank you, logic class. The testing mechanisms are extremely easy to design. I don't have any burning desire to share those with others at this point, so you can take my word for that, or not, at your choosing. Have you looked into "ESFJ" yet? We're never going to agree on anything. Really understanding the type differences and interrelations is what I do. It's why I find the subject so interesting, because mainstream psychology will have you believe we're all much more alike than we are. Some people are incompatible, as far as any kind of mutual satisfaction is concerned. Of course, one of the trademarks of ESFJs more than any other type is denying the relevance of typing... Note that I don't think ESFJs are bad scientists, I mean, I typed my biology professor as ESFJ. But I have never met or heard of an ESFJ who valued intuition. They require accepted fact.

It's all subjective presently, but the goal is to acquire an objective foundation, to demonstrate a biological link. So there will at least be one way to determine types objectively. Typing someone is a bit like diagnosing them with a "non-biological" personality disorder like antisocial p.d., without such severe a stigma. But it's an amateur field, this typing, and thus the experts will lack official credentials. It's an issue I face.

A history of being "shown" correct in some way is the key to that. Removing further confirmation of mine from the equation: There have been many people who have said, some time after I typed them, that I was right, based on further self-assessment of theirs. And I've typed others "in public," only to have a few other people publicly/privately tell me that they agree with my "corrections." It's very important to note that it's all subjective. People either type themselves via analysis or tests*, or someone else types them. It's not out of line for me to consider my assessments better than most peoples' self assessments, based on some expertise in the arena. *By making an amalgamation of minor self-assessments. P.S. ENTP?

Interesting stuff, for sure. You're mistaken there, technically. Regarding objective matters, I don't claim to have absolute confidence. I was referring to my interpretations of the functions, which has always only involved subjective analysis, by me or anyone. I'm confident that my conclusions are better than Jung's (Though partially derived from them). Neither of us is basing our notions of the functions on science. Science is necessary for illustrating physical differences which relate to personality. It's not fundamentally necessary for analyzing peoples' psyches. In fact, with present techique and technology, science can't go the full nine when it comes to that. It's a subjective field, in part. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Tangental, as noted, but: Yes, I agree, because I do in fact know how the scientific method works. Step one is hypothesizing.

Well, you certainly aren't the first! I can only say that I have absolute confidence that my assessments of I/E and functions are more accurate than Jung's, Myers/Briggs', or Socionics'. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I appreciate that, and agree. I lack knowledge of the effects of hormones on physiology, but I personally prioritize finding a link, and then discovering the cause.