that doesnt really contradict what i said. in the case of kuhn for example, i dont know much about him. even so, i go by the few pieces of evidence that I do have.I don't see this happening. Usually you just cite a certain feature of the thinker's intellectual character and conclude that their type is one that corresponds to this feature the most.
in the case of Socrates, by contrast, I work professionally with the primary sources and the scholarship surrounding him.
in both cases, I take in the evidence that is present in my attention. if people wish to help out by bringing up more evidence to my attention thats nice. if they dont wish to contribute thats ok as well. if they just want to bitch and moan i wish they would find some other outlet though
did you write it anywhere I might have noticed, or were we just supposed to know?Those lists were posted over two years ago, I have been long aware that they contain deep flaws.
if you have read your popper (or even your kuhn) you would have noticed that poorly supported claims are more valuable than no claims at allIt merits a reasonable discussion only as much as any other claim that is unsupported or poorly supported.
cool!Your website shall gladly join the company of other folk typologists who have deluged the web which consist of an arbitrary succession of personality descriptions illicitly generalized to represent large groups of people or heroes of history.