Thomas Kuhn

[Blackwater]

What say people to Kuhn as an ENFJ? He strikes me as the same kind of banal "thinker" Hannah Arendt is...

 

[Litvyak]

I don't know him enough. Based on his theories, NJ seems to be acceptable.

On what do you base the 'F' part?

 

[Blackwater]

its more about harmonising/ excusing different viewpoints/ epochs etc. through his paradigm theory than it is discovering anything new it itself

like arendt, imo

 

[Blackwater]

400 posts about fictive pesonalities from tv and 1 about a philosopher

and you people call yourself intuitives

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Hey Blackwater, since you're in the business of typing every eminent eminent intellectual out there, why don't you expand the horizons of your inquiry by also typing animals and insects? Cats, dogs, lizzards, elephants? Since IQ is largely innate and 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. So, cats must definitely be smarter than chimps as cats have four legs of the same length, yet the arms of chimps are shorter than their legs. Furthermore, you should also draw correlations between the creatures' type and IQ. I bet being an NT animal has something to do with having symmetrical body parts and hence, intelligence!

Oh, by the way; you strike me as a 'kind of banal' thinker too: so I will type you an ENFJ now!

 

[Blackwater]

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?

 

[Blackwater]

oh, I forgot to say that im glad to finally be enfj

 

[SolitaryWalker]

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?

My attempts to type philosophers were tentative. I never intended to assert definitively that a certain scholar belongs to this or that type. This exercise was means to the end of adequately describing the fundamental cognitive tendencies of the human mind.

A more appropriate way to interpret my claims about the types of philosophers is as follows. When I make a claim about a philosopher, I do not refer to the entire person who may be described in a biography, but rather than intellectual character of that person. For example, Spinoza represented the intellectual character of a Ti dominant thinker as he worked very systematically and sought precision of thought even in the most abstract of concepts. Stating this accurately describes how a Ti mindset would be inclined to behave in an intellectual setting.

However, this is a far cry from a bold assertion that Spinoza was indeed a Ti type. It would be a reasonable guess, but the evidence is still inconclusive as an unwarranted assumption is made in the process. This presupposition is that the author had the liberty to be true to his natural tendencies of thought. We do not know from reading his books alone if his intellectual character represents the essence of his fundamental cognitive habits. In order to know if he truly has displayed his natural tendencies of thought in his work, we'd need to know a good amount of biographical facts about him.

I truly could care less if you can refute the conclusions of Principles of Typology regarding philosopher types as my commentary on that served as no more than a rhetorical technique. The conceptual substance of my work had nothing to do with this task, what an intellectual's type is should be a question for historians and biographers to debate; its altogether irrelevant to the study of solidified unconscious cognitive dispositions.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with typing philosophers, but there certainly is with the way you're doing it. There is no reason to suppose that Kuhn was a banal thinker just because his professional publications portray a reckless character, however, there would be if he displayed the same character in his personal correspondences where no political, social or a professional result was at stake.

 

[Blackwater]

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. no claim is ever finite. but we can get closer and closer to the truth. as such, my current assessments are merely stepping stones to some future refinement within this field. as every good philosophy should be. you have read your popper, haven't you? (i say this in the same tone of voice as i would use to say: "you left your soiled underwear in my bathroom")

There is no reason to suppose that Kuhn was a banal thinker just because his professional publications portray a reckless character

NO reason? now you're getting too smart for this enfj




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

 

[SolitaryWalker]

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.

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.

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.

Those lists were posted over two years ago, I have been long aware that they contain deep flaws.

assessments which i am happy to see challenged.

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.

 

[Blackwater]

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.

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.

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

Those lists were posted over two years ago, I have been long aware that they contain deep flaws.

did you write it anywhere I might have noticed, or were we just supposed to know?

It merits a reasonable discussion only as much as any other claim that is unsupported or poorly supported.

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 all

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.

cool!

 

[Halla74]

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.

That's just your opinion, and in my opinion, your opinion is incorrect.

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.

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.

 

[Blackwater]

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!

 

[Sniffles]

To type somebody purely on their writings or argument is rather half-assed; but I wouldn't say it's completely irrelevant to typing somebody when combined with a study of their life.

 

[Halla74]

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!

I see. Thank you for clarifying that, it makes perfect sense now. Have a good day!

 

[Orangey]

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. Third, and this is unrelated to the type issue, but I disagree with Blackwater's value judgment regarding the merits of Kuhn and Arendt's work. I am always suspicious of anyone who dismisses someone's work out of hand, as this is usually evidence that they were not properly prepared to read the work in the first place.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

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!

You've got me all figured out!

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..

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!

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.

There is a big difference between something that is baseless and something that only seems such to you because you're incapable of understanding its supporting rationale.

 

[Orangey]

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!

Yes, I agree that it is nonsense to extrapolate disposition or temperament from single instances of behavior. It seemed to me that this is exactly what Blackwater was doing. Kuhn wrote a book which Blackwater found to exhibit "kind of banal thinking"; this banal thinking is, according to Blackwater, more ENFJ than anything else; therefore Kuhn is probably an ENFJ.

So yes, I agree that a person's real temperament is not the same as the "folk typological" temperament, which is based on a person's adherence to sets of stereotyped behaviors. 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.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

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.

This shows that the salient conclusion David Keirsey has drawn in Please Understand Me is altogether untenable. He stated the thesis of his project in the opening passages by claiming that knowledge of a person's type has predictive value with regard to his behavior. A significant quantity of our members are in agreement with this view, which is more interesting of a fact about them rather than about the study of temperaments.

 

[Blackmail!]

Sadly, I have to agree with our dear Solitary Walker on one important point: When you try to type somebody, at least try to explain in details why. This is something Blackwater never did: it's always vague, half-backed ideas that have no support at all: Zero rationality, totally empty and arbitrary claims that have no context at all.

Hannah Arendt? A "kind of banal" thinker?
What is it supposed to mean?
Has he *really* read her works? Has he really put them into context: why, when, how, and who?

While I do not entirely agree with SW's own conclusions when he tried to type some prominent philosophers (especially when he concluded all of them were in fact INTPs ), at least he explained why, and following a consistent method. Of course it is my right to disagree with his method (which is far from being perfect), but at least, there's a solid basis for discussion, if we want to start one.
And furthermore, I have also noticed that SW's own conclusions are becoming subtler and subtler with each new incoming year. Somehow, I have to ackowledge he constantly challenges his own presumed biases and notices new possibilities, new hypothesis, even if it took him a certain amount of time.

But even then, such new hypothesis are NEVER (totally) arbitrary, and NEVER just pop out of nowhere. That's important, that's what I respect.

Sometimes the method is more important than the conclusion (I know, that's my Ti bias! :rolli.
The journey is more important than the destination.