Well I was thinking and I'd thought I'd suggest a method for the logical typing of individuals
It seems to me that if someone is typing someone else online and they are cherry picking quotes, it could be perceived that there is an agenda, even if the intentions are in impartial. From my understanding, to show that you are reasoning impartially is one of the cornerstones of scientific theory.
To remedy this I propose that those who wish to state that they are arguing logically or impartially should use a method to demonstrate this. This would add a respectability to their conclusions.
As I have already mentioned cherry picking data is the main culprit and those that do this cannot legitamately claim to be acting logically. They certainly cannot expect to be perceived as such.
I propose that those who type in the name of reason either follow the method proposed below (Being methodical is not a great strength of mine so what follows may well be flawed) or propose a superior method.
1. randomly select a reasonable quantity of data over a period of time
(this can be achieved by randomly selecting a page and post number and selecting this from the individuals posting history)
The starting posts to threads should be given greater weight as they tend to concern what the individual is genuinely like and interested in.
The selection should form a good spread over a reasonable period of time as under stress etc. the subjects behaviour may alter substantially. If the period of time looked at is too small these unnatural behaviours could have a significant impact on the typing of that individual.
Even so, prolonged periods of stress or confusion can take place and even with a spread of posts over the entire span of the subjects posting history could be effected. This should be taken into consideration.
2. Initially only these posts should be used as evidence and they should either be
(i) analysed by a small group of mutually respected typists
(ii) placed in the public domain
3. The individual posts should be analysed as a whole for general themes, as well as specific words and sentences. If the posts are placed chronologically a general pattern of behaviour should emerge, if there are inconsistencies the subject should be asked about this.
4. It should be assumed that the subject knows more about themselves than the other typists involved. If in doubt ask the subject.
5. As with all scientific experiments ethical matters need to be taken into consideration.
(i) No such thread should be started without the subjects permission.
Or more preferably their instigation.
(ii) The subject should reserve the right to request the matter be closed at any time
(iii) no one should have a type imposed upon them by the forum. This should only be used as an impartial tool to help an individual find his or her type. For many people their type is central to how they perceive themselves. If the analysis does not persuade or convince the subject, the matter should be closed even if the consensus is that there is a mistyping.
6. All animals are created equal.
Anyway that is my suggestion, I would be happy to have any of my points discussed, expanded or corrected.