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).