Blackwater
New member
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 454
- MBTI Type
- ERTP
What say people to Kuhn as an ENFJ? He strikes me as the same kind of banal "thinker" Hannah Arendt is...
Since IQ is ... determined by the symmetry of the creature's body parts, you can conjecture what the animal's IQ is just by looking at its picture.
sweet blueswing
i never said that. and even if i did, statistical averages don't apply to one person. i guess i struck a nerve in that other thread. you af all people should be glad that somebodys out there, typing philosophers. after all, you did so yourself in your book. - or are you really just afraid that if people start looking into these matters for themselves, some of your claims may be refuted?
There is no reason to suppose that Kuhn was a banal thinker just because his professional publications portray a reckless character
luckily for both of us, i never professed to any such methodlogy. and i probably never will. i take in all the evidence that is brought to my attention and from the chaos that is that pile of evidence, i try to assert what type a given individual may have been.
ps. bluewing i think you're out on a limb here - you made such lists on this board and/or intpcentral yourself. the only thing i did was dedicate a website to my assessments.
assessments which i am happy to see challenged.
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.
Those lists were posted over two years ago, I have been long aware that they contain deep flaws.
It merits a reasonable discussion only as much as any other claim that is unsupported or poorly supported.
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.
There is no need for a challenge if you keep on claiming that a certain intellectual's type is defined by the ideas they submitted to a professional publisher.
Baseless assertions are to be frowned upon rather than honored in light of a serious discussion. Your website shall join the company of other folk typologists who have deluged the web with their profile descriptions that consist of a merely arbitrary succession of personality descriptions illicitly generalized to represent large groups of people or heroes of history.
actually what bluewing is doing is method acting to demonstrate his point: he thinks we should ascribe a special weight his oppinion simply because it is his opinon. in other words, he is giving us the giving ETJ-rutine, even though he is INTP, thereby demonstrating that we cannot take a person's utterances as indicative of his type!
actually what bluewing is doing is method acting to demonstrate his point: he thinks we should ascribe a special weight his oppinion simply because it is his opinon. in other words, he is giving us the giving ETJ-rutine, even though he is INTP, thereby demonstrating that we cannot take a person's utterances as indicative of his type!
Just saw this on the new posts feed thingy and had to respond. First of all, I don't find that there is much similar in either style or content between Kuhn and Arendt. Second, even if I did, their "banal thinking" is in no way indicative of any particular personality type..
Just my opinion, but you have issued your fair share of baseless assertions as of late. Let he who is not guilty cast the first stone.
It may be indicative of a certain 'personality type' or simply some vague definition of a folk typological type. That is, how for example, David Keirsey defines an ENFJ or how countless online profiles do. However, as you perhaps meant to claim, being a banal thinker does not point towards having a certain temperament or having a set of solidified cognitive dispositions. Somebody does not become banal mostly on the basis of their Feeling dominant preference, usually it is more of a result of their personal experiences. However, that's not exactly what most 'personality type' profiles lead us to believe. They carry across the following idea.
J-Organized
P-Laid back
T-Rational
F-Sentimental
N-Creative
S-Simple and 'practical'
Blackwater probably assumed that an ENFJ is a banal thinker because people who are both creative and sentimental are more likely to be so than those who are creative and rational. He didn't say that Kuhn was a banal thinker, period, he said he was a 'kind of' banal thinker. So, somewhat banal, perhaps in comparison to the other more rational scholars!
If the "situationists" in social psychology have taught us anything, it is that we cannot use general notions of character or personality to predict an individual's behavior in any specific instance. Behavior is far more likely to be governed, as you say, by the person's history, and also by specific (sometimes subtle, trivial) aspects of the situation (context) in which the behavior is performed. Knowing this, it does not make sense to take specific instances of behavior and generalize character or personality traits from these.