Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: New Model Based on Subtypes?

  1. #1
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default New Model Based on Subtypes?

    Consider the following people (just for the purposes of illustration):

    1. Bob Ross - SEI-Si.
    2. Alexandre Dumas - SEI-Fe.
    3. Sandra Bullock - ESE-Fe.
    4. Nigella Lawson - ESE-Si.

    What if we were to rearrange the types to create a new typing system that matched up subtypes differently? For instance:

    :
    1. Bob Ross - , "irrational."
    2. Nigella Lawson - , "rational."

    :
    1. Alexandre Dumas - , "irrational."
    2. Sandra Bullock - , "rational."

    Now apply the same pattern to every two subtypes. Would different relations emerge? For instance,

    could Gerrison Keller () be more of a "comparative" of Bob Ross? Or could Robert DeNiro () be more of a "dual" to Sandra Bullock?
    LII

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    SLE/LSE sx/sp
    Posts
    2,489
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    I have no idea what you just said.
    Me too, unfortunately...or not, I don't know.

    Nigella Lawson is ESE-Si, I agree.

  3. #3
    So fluffeh. Cuddly McFluffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    2,780
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    Consider the following people (just for the purposes of illustration):

    1. Bob Ross - SEI-Si.
    2. Alexandre Dumas - SEI-Fe.
    3. Sandra Bullock - ESE-Fe.
    4. Nigella Lawson - ESE-Si.

    What if we were to rearrange the types to create a new typing system that matched up subtypes differently? For instance:

    :
    1. Bob Ross - , "irrational."
    2. Nigella Lawson - , "rational."

    :
    1. Alexandre Dumas - , "irrational."
    2. Sandra Bullock - , "rational."

    Now apply the same pattern to every two subtypes. Would different relations emerge? For instance,

    could Gerrison Keller () be more of a "comparative" of Bob Ross? Or could Robert DeNiro () be more of a "dual" to Sandra Bullock?
    I see what you're getting at, but it seems unnecessarily confusing.
    Johari/Nohari

    "Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."

    Fruit, the fluffy kitty.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    Consider the following people (just for the purposes of illustration):

    1. Bob Ross - SEI-Si.
    2. Alexandre Dumas - SEI-Fe.
    3. Sandra Bullock - ESE-Fe.
    4. Nigella Lawson - ESE-Si.

    What if we were to rearrange the types to create a new typing system that matched up subtypes differently? For instance:

    :
    1. Bob Ross - , "irrational."
    2. Nigella Lawson - , "rational."

    :
    1. Alexandre Dumas - , "irrational."
    2. Sandra Bullock - , "rational."

    Now apply the same pattern to every two subtypes. Would different relations emerge? For instance,

    could Gerrison Keller () be more of a "comparative" of Bob Ross? Or could Robert DeNiro () be more of a "dual" to Sandra Bullock?
    Well thinking in that way may hook you on to something, but I don't think that the proposition in and of itself is correct...

    But distilling the relationships to an abstract level that is represented in many different forms in many different models... that may be worth doing, But you cannot treat the substance without the form, because to do so is a recipe for confusion.

  5. #5
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Well thinking in that way may hook you on to something, but I don't think that the proposition in and of itself is correct...

    But distilling the relationships to an abstract level that is represented in many different forms in many different models... that may be worth doing, But you cannot treat the substance without the form, because to do so is a recipe for confusion.
    Interesting. I've thought about dual-type theory as well (a little bit)... What about the notion of combination, but in a way that is still somewhat consistent with Model A? For instance, the only types that can be combined are from the same quadra, along some IM spectrum (e.g., ........), or perhaps those that have positive intertype relations (since some might consider it odd that incompatible types can be combined)?
    Last edited by jason_m; 12-25-2010 at 07:31 AM.
    LII

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •