Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix13
EDIT: I disagree with Edahn. Dissonance has the right potatoes.
|
First off, this is a conversation that could easily get lost in a debate about semantics. There is no accepted definition of introversion or shyness, and the point of this conversation is to question and investigate any definition we might already hold. What you call introversion and what I call introversion doesn't really matter because it really has no significance. For me to say I'm right and you're wrong in meaningless and stupid, because there it's just a matter of definition. It makes more sense to think about whether we have two character traits that look similar but in fact are different.
Second, trying to squeeze a personality pattern (for lack of better term) like shyness into an MBTI framework is a bad idea. Why? Because MBTI isn't equipped to handle things like shyness, first off. It's equipped to break people up along 4 dimension, none of which include shyness. Second, MBTI is not an investigative tool or a theory of mind. It's a descriptive tool, and it's power to create deductions is zero. It's a machine: you feed it some input, it adds it up and generate a composite sketch using that input. It adds nothing that you haven't already told it. (I didn't read your first post, but I read part of Dissonance's, and you agreed with him.)
Third, I'd like to know why you disagree with me. If you can do that without just arguing semantics, I'd like to know. If it's just semantics, then that's fine, but I don't think you should be DISAGREEING, exactly, because I didn't really make an argument, just proposed a definition. But lets see what you got.
