Your statement on evolution seems hasty. There is a purpose to evolution, and it is survival. And survival is the reward of the environment you're referring to. However, you shouldn't give the tree climber any less credit -- if he has learned it, that was his intellectualism..
If you had read my original response, you would have considered that I did not challenge your post on the basis of your typological views. Part of that is simply because typology is quite arbitrary and I don't quite agree with it as a whole; you mention "modern ESFJs" and "modern INTPs" like they are uncontested truth. That isn't true. Viewed on the whole, typology (and to a lesser extent MBTI, a system you believe you've seperated from) is a belief system. There isn't anything about what you say above that can be proven or falsified: What you can do is to observe your surroundings and mold the observations into a concept brought on by the belief -- in this case, the concept is "psychological type" and the belief is that in "typological faculties."..
1)ESFJ
2)ESFP
3)ISFP
4)ISFJ
5)ISTJ
6)ESTP
7)ESTJ
8)ISTP
9)INFP
10)ENFJ
11)ENFP
12)INFJ
13)ENTJ
14)ENTP
15)INTJ
16)INTP
The problem is not so much that it is absurd as many of my antagonists have insinuated, but that it is sterile and therefore does nothing to answer significant questions about human nature, the future of humanity and the relationship between evolution and intelligence. In principle, how can an argument be alleged to be preposterous when it is almost entirely devoid of content?This line of thought is disappointingly narrow.
You've got to hand it to me, this was a skillful display of trolling. The conclusions of this thread were obviously very narrow and generally trivial. However, it is remarkable how so many participants unduly likened my claims to racism or various suggestions that some types were superior to other types in all morally relevant respects. What I find the most astounding about this discussion is how much attention a brief essay founded on a very parochial set of assumptions with a very circumscribed scope of inquiry received over 140 replies. It's a telling fact that the only way this thread could survive for that long is by virtue of the users' zealous insistence on discussing topics that were at best tangentially connected to mine.
The problem is not so much that it is absurd as many of my antagonists have insinuated, but that it is sterile and therefore does nothing to answer significant questions about human nature, the future of humanity and the relationship between evolution and intelligence. In principle, how can an argument be alleged to be preposterous when it is almost entirely devoid of content?
It is interesting however to wonder why such small numbers of people fall into each of the types, whether or not that has anything to do with evolution, and how the mix will change as time progresses. I would think that INs were not on the top of the pecking order of cavemen and there are some things that have changed. I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence or passion however.
It's not so skillful when virtually everyone classifies the thread as moronic.You've got to hand it to me, this was a skillful display of trolling.
The purpose of trolling is to agitate, the reason why people are agitated is beside the point.