Empirical Justification of Intertype Relationship Theory?

[Creepy-]

I have noticed that the manifestation of these functions in a very precise and apparent way hence, I am not really questioning this aspect of the framework. I honestly think that this aspect has great potential in scientific research. Perhaps maybe we can directly correlate the functions to brain chemistry or brain structure and acquire precise physical evidence for these metaphysical concepts. There are already many studies under way in the study of the brain and one of the most shocking things they have uncovered is that there are fundamental differences between chemistry of the male brain and that of the female brain. Some of it is related to F vs T in that the female brain is wired for F, and the male brain is wired for T, if I understand correctly.

I think I know what you're referring to, it's not necessarily incorrect, but rather oversimplified...

Female brains have more highly developed limbic systems, but that does not make them "Feelers". Emotions are not F, T's are equally subject to them. (That being said, I think female T types tend to be a bit more "feelery" that the equivalent male T type, but still not an F type!)

Anyway, aren't the statistics for T/F something like 60/40 for males and 40/60 for females? Pretty close.

If anyone is interested in the functions of the limbic system... (who knows, it might be relevant and this is as good a pplace to put them as any considering we're on the topic).

Olfactory cortex (important, considering olfaction is the only sensory infromation not rerouted via the thalamus)
Amygdala (aggression and fear)
Hippocampus (required for formation of long-term memory), parahippocampal gyrus (important for formation of spatial memory), mammilary body (important for formation of memory)
Thalamus (reroutes sensory information)
Hypothalamus (regulates autonomic nervous system, blood pressure, heart rate, hunger, thirst, sexual arousal, sleep/wake cycles)
Pituitary gland (endocrine gland)
Cingulate gyrus (heart rate, blood pressure, cognitive and attentional processing)
Nucleus accumbens (reward, pleasure and addiction)
Orbitofrontal cortex (decision making)

There are also close links with the septum (involved in orgasm), ventral tegmental area (pleasure), and basal ganglia (repetitive behaviours, reward experiences, focussing attention).

[Olga]

I don't know how long we have to wait for this kind of research and it can be not just about evidence in the brain. Do we need the research to prove the statements of socionics (structures in the brain) or to find out why the relationships work between the couples which are not duals. What is it important for the relationship to work? If information exchange (support of the functions) is not the most important ingredient than what is? Socionics is said to be the best theory that describes the intertype realtionships but what if the informational metabolism is not the answer for relationships. I would be not upset if socionic theory would be less predictive but could explain more complex issues about the psyche and relationships.
Why can't we do something not overly complex and withot too many participants. We just need to start the ball rolling. We could have 10 participants or so in each group of the same type, males and females and to collect some demographic data, to use The Big 5 factor measure or any other of your choice to see how the people of the same type differ from each other to find out the facotrs which may relate to those differences. We can test different hypothesis like:

1. Males are more logical than women.

2. Children use more their creative function compared to adults.

We can do some sort of explorative research to find out about life values,
moral reasoning levels, IQ. It depends what info people are more interested in. May be we could do it on this site?

[tcaudilllg]

I don't know how long we have to wait for this kind of research and it can be not just about evidence in the brain. Do we need the research to prove the statements of socionics (structures in the brain) or to find out why the relationships work between the couples which are not duals. What is it important for the relationship to work? If information exchange (support of the functions) is not the most important ingredient than what is? Socionics is said to be the best theory that describes the intertype realtionships but what if the informational metabolism is not the answer for relationships. I would be not upset if socionic theory would be less predictive but could explain more complex issues about the psyche and relationships.
Why can't we do something not overly complex and withot too many participants. We just need to start the ball rolling. We could have 10 participants or so in each group of the same type, males and females and to collect some demographic data, to use The Big 5 factor measure or any other of your choice to see how the people of the same type differ from each other to find out the facotrs which may relate to those differences. We can test different hypothesis like:

1. Males are more logical than women.

2. Children use more their creative function compared to adults.

We can do some sort of explorative research to find out about life values,
moral reasoning levels, IQ. It depends what info people are more interested in. May be we could do it on this site?

Am I the only person who isn't kind of disturbed that these studies that "show men are less emotional than women" don't take the type of the participants into account? I mean, these studies usually aren't huge, and there aren't a lot of them done. Mostly one or two get done and then one of them gets the attention of the media, and it becomes popular wisdom. Another thing: people have to consent for the studies. Some types are more likely to do that than others, yes?

I try to avoid popular wisdom. Why rely on that when there's Wikipedia?

[wym123]

Am I the only person who isn't kind of disturbed that these studies that "show men are less emotional than women" don't take the type of the participants into account? I mean, these studies usually aren't huge, and there aren't a lot of them done. Mostly one or two get done and then one of them gets the attention of the media, and it becomes popular wisdom. Another thing: people have to consent for the studies. Some types are more likely to do that than others, yes?

I try to avoid popular wisdom. Why rely on that when there's Wikipedia?

Are you arguing that the studies are not peer-reviewed or that the experiments are inherently faulty (small sample, etc)? I don't think that's the case.

I don't know whether a magazine like Scientific American would constitutes "the media" but I don't think a magazine like that would poorly report the matter. Also, these "issues" are not "popular wisdom" considering that most people do not even care about science.

[tcaudilllg]

Am I the only person who isn't kind of disturbed that these studies that "show men are less emotional than women" don't take the type of the participants into account? I mean, these studies usually aren't huge, and there aren't a lot of them done. Mostly one or two get done and then one of them gets the attention of the media, and it becomes popular wisdom. Another thing: people have to consent for the studies. Some types are more likely to do that than others, yes?

I try to avoid popular wisdom. Why rely on that when there's Wikipedia?

Are you arguing that the studies are not peer-reviewed or that the experiments are inherently faulty (small sample, etc)? I don't think that's the case.

I don't know whether a magazine like Scientific American would constitutes "the media" but I don't think a magazine like that would poorly report the matter. Also, these "issues" are not "popular wisdom" considering that most people do not even care about science.

That's not true at all. Most people do care about science. If you approach someone on the street with a videocamera and ask them their opinion about something, then they aren't necessarily going to be frank with you. But we INTJs usually tend to find someone to talk to about our ideas, usually anyone who will listen. Extroverts (most people apparently) really do suck up information like a spunge when they trust the person who is giving it to them. Now when they distrust trust someone, they'll pretend not to know what's going on. THAT's the root of your misimpression. If they simply do not trust them however, without distrusting them, then they will regard what the person they aren't trusting is telling them with a grain of salt, a healthy skepticism; because a lack of trust always flows from both sides, because it reflects a perpetual dissonance of context. Therefore it may seem like "most people" don't care about what you have to say. Although close, it's not the whole truth.

About that whole trust thing, I think there is a parallel to it in socionics. Quoting Rick's translation here.

Perceives information about animate and inanimate objects' physical activity, deeds, and actions/activities. This perception provides the ability to make sense of what is going on. It defines the awareness of and ability or inability to think up ways of doing things, distinguish rational actions from irrational ones, and the ability or inability to direct others' work.

When your 2nd function differentiates into consciousness, it acts as a slave to the 1st. I am , however my is better than well developed; it plays a regular, if subservient role in my personality. Therefore I can internally, consciously process my ability to direct another person's energy. If someone disagrees with me, or is unsure about my ideas, they aren't going to let me direct them, are they?

[Creepy-]

Am I the only person who isn't kind of disturbed that these studies that "show men are less emotional than women" don't take the type of the participants into account? I mean, these studies usually aren't huge, and there aren't a lot of them done. Mostly one or two get done and then one of them gets the attention of the media, and it becomes popular wisdom. Another thing: people have to consent for the studies. Some types are more likely to do that than others, yes?

I try to avoid popular wisdom. Why rely on that when there's Wikipedia?

I'm disturbed by the studies because "emotionalness" isn't readily quantifiable because people have very different ways of expressing emotions (so observation of behaviour is misleading) so you'd probably need to rely on self-reporting. How about those dominants who seem calm on the surface? Still waters run deep, etc. etc.. Plus this is a really bad place to use self-reporting because of all places the social-desirability bias is going to kick in, it's going to be here - with a vengeance.

Experimenter bias, too, considering the problems with collecting data it will be far too easy to twist the results to reflect popular wisdom.

(logical and methological flaws irritate me like nothing else)

From what I understand, the studies don't even show that, anyway, it's just a popular misinterpretation of the significance of results. My problem isn't so much with the already existing studies as with the concept of studies built to test that particular hypothesis.

[tcaudilllg]

I just want to inform everybody that I am quickly linking functional relationship patterns to the special theory of relativity. Jung's typology has been linked already. The special theory does not support four dimensions because change is not considered by it. For that, the general theory is needed.

By demonstrating that the perception of four personality functions is a natural consequence of the relativity theory, Socionics will be empirically verified by default.

[Olga]

I have not understood the meaning of the last sentence.

[wym123]

I just want to inform everybody that I am quickly linking functional relationship patterns to the special theory of relativity. Jung's typology has been linked already. The special theory does not support four dimensions because change is not considered by it. For that, the general theory is needed.

By demonstrating that the perception of four personality functions is a natural consequence of the relativity theory, Socionics will be empirically verified by default.

I really don't want to be rude and I know that what I am about to ask might offend you a bit but please don't be. I just want to know a few things.

How old are you? What are your formal and informal education? Have you studied any Physics?

[Angel von Himmel]

Heh, theory of realitivity? Maybe some links could be made to that, atleast when it come to perspective and the inside/outside track of things.

Hmmmm ... this is getting quite interesting and somewhat entertaining ..

[Angel von Himmel]

How old are you? What are your formal and informal education? Have you studied any Physics?

Does that really matter? I've been in and out of various higher educational systems for the last few years and have heard more crap spewn from people with PHDs than candy machines, and you can find those most virtually anywhere.

[wym123]

How old are you? What are your formal and informal education? Have you studied any Physics?

Does that really matter? I've been in and out of various higher educational systems for the last few years and have heard more crap spewn from people with PHDs than candy machines, and you can find those most virtually anywhere.

Are you trying to argue that the average person without a Ph'D spews out less crap that the average person with a Ph'D?

[Angel von Himmel]

How old are you? What are your formal and informal education? Have you studied any Physics?

Does that really matter? I've been in and out of various higher educational systems for the last few years and have heard more crap spewn from people with PHDs than candy machines, and you can find those most virtually anywhere.

Are you trying to argue that the average person without a Ph'D spews out less crap that the average person with a Ph'D?

It's actually about the same ... short of jumping through hoops and having a piece of paper to show that you have endured the process; it is just moreso that those with higher education have created ways to BS more elaboratelly and tend to be challenged less often than the average joe when it comes to what is being said and soforth.

[wym123]

How old are you? What are your formal and informal education? Have you studied any Physics?

Does that really matter? I've been in and out of various higher educational systems for the last few years and have heard more crap spewn from people with PHDs than candy machines, and you can find those most virtually anywhere.

Are you trying to argue that the average person without a Ph'D spews out less crap that the average person with a Ph'D?

Its actually about the same ... short of jumping through hoops and having a piece of paper to show that endured the process; it is just moreso that those with higher education have created ways to BS more elaboratelly and tend to be challenged less often than the average joe when it comes to what is being said and soforth.

Are you arguing that the dissertation defense process is not challenging enough in the sense that, the content of Ph'D dissertations are not as scrutinized and combed for errors as comments made by an average joe?

[Angel von Himmel]

How old are you? What are your formal and informal education? Have you studied any Physics?

Does that really matter? I've been in and out of various higher educational systems for the last few years and have heard more crap spewn from people with PHDs than candy machines, and you can find those most virtually anywhere.

Are you trying to argue that the average person without a Ph'D spews out less crap that the average person with a Ph'D?

Its actually about the same ... short of jumping through hoops and having a piece of paper to show that endured the process; it is just moreso that those with higher education have created ways to BS more elaboratelly and tend to be challenged less often than the average joe when it comes to what is being said and soforth.

Are you arguing that the dissertation defense process is not challenging enough in the sense that, the content of Ph'D dissertations are not as scrutinized and combed for errors as comments made by an average joe?

No, I am saying that just because someone has a PHD, it does not mean he or she is credible or even remotely correct if considered credible. The process of obtaining a PHD fits under the 'jumping hoops' process I mentioned earlier.

[wym123]

How old are you? What are your formal and informal education? Have you studied any Physics?

Does that really matter? I've been in and out of various higher educational systems for the last few years and have heard more crap spewn from people with PHDs than candy machines, and you can find those most virtually anywhere.

Are you trying to argue that the average person without a Ph'D spews out less crap that the average person with a Ph'D?

Its actually about the same ... short of jumping through hoops and having a piece of paper to show that endured the process; it is just moreso that those with higher education have created ways to BS more elaboratelly and tend to be challenged less often than the average joe when it comes to what is being said and soforth.

Are you arguing that the dissertation defense process is not challenging enough in the sense that, the content of Ph'D dissertations are not as scrutinized and combed for errors as comments made by an average joe?

No, I am saying that just because someone has a PHD, it does not mean he or she is credible or even remotely correct if considered credible. The process of obtaining a PHD fits under the 'jumping hoops' process I mentioned earlier.

Are you using the outliers as justification to doubt the rigor of a doctorate degree? If not, then my point still stands. Ph'Ds are hard to earn and those with Ph'D are definitely less likely to spew crap out than the average joe, therefore, the education does matter.

[Angel von Himmel]

Are you using the outliers as justification to doubt the rigor of a doctorate degree? If not, then my point still stands. Ph'Ds are hard to earn and those with Ph'D are definitely less likely to spew crap out than the average joe, therefore, the education does matter.

And that is what I call Naive ...

[wym123]

Are you using the outliers as justification to doubt the rigor of a doctorate degree? If not, then my point still stands. Ph'Ds are hard to earn and those with Ph'D are definitely less likely to spew crap out than the average joe, therefore, education does matter when it comes to accuracy of the content.

And that is what I call Naive ...

Not really. If you want, you can always refute me. I will start you off: What percentage of all Ph'Ds are bogus degrees?

[wym123]

I should be more careful. We are only talking about Physics, arguably the most rigorous and hardcore subject (only Math is more so). If you bullshit your thesis, they will most likely know. I know for sure that you can't bullshit a Mathematics thesis.

I am aware that in other subjects where there are so many hand-waving arguments used, crap can easily be overlooked. Good luck doing that on any of the hardcore sciences (the subjects with a lot of advanced math (math cannot be bullshitted)) such as Physics.

[Angel von Himmel]

Are you using the outliers as justification to doubt the rigor of a doctorate degree? If not, then my point still stands. Ph'Ds are hard to earn and those with Ph'D are definitely less likely to spew crap out than the average joe, therefore, education does matter when it comes to accuracy of the content.

And that is what I call Naive ...

Not really. If you want, you can always refute me. I will start you off: What percentage of all Ph'Ds are bogus degrees?

I hardly find this amusing or constructive ...

[wym123]

Are you using the outliers as justification to doubt the rigor of a doctorate degree? If not, then my point still stands. Ph'Ds are hard to earn and those with Ph'D are definitely less likely to spew crap out than the average joe, therefore, education does matter when it comes to accuracy of the content.

And that is what I call Naive ...

Not really. If you want, you can always refute me. I will start you off: What percentage of all Ph'Ds are bogus degrees?

I hardly find this amusing or constructive ...

Would you like to share your education background? I am really curious.

[Angel von Himmel]

I should be more careful. We are only talking about Physics, arguably the most rigorous and hardcore subject (only Math is more so). If you bullshit your thesis, they will most likely know. I know for sure that you can't bullshit a Mathematics thesis.

I am aware that in other subjects where there are so many hand-waving arguments used, crap can easily be overlooked. Good luck doing that on any of the hardcore sciences (the subjects with a lot of advanced math (math cannot be bullshitted)) such as Physics.

I agree with that ... unless you are omnipresent or something it would be near impossible to cheat without being called out.

[Angel von Himmel]

Would you like to share your education background? I am really curious.

I studied Religion, Philosophy, Psychology, and Greek, Hebrew, and German at a university for four years, along with taking several computer science classes. I am currently transferring to another University where I can finish up my teaching credentials for German, Philosophy, Psychology, etc. and am in the process of preparing for a Master's degree program.

[wym123]

I should be more careful. We are only talking about Physics, arguably the most rigorous and hardcore subject (only Math is more so). If you bullshit your thesis, they will most likely know. I know for sure that you can't bullshit a Mathematics thesis.

I am aware that in other subjects where there are so many hand-waving arguments used, crap can easily be overlooked. Good luck doing that on any of the hardcore sciences (the subjects with a lot of advanced math (math cannot be bullshitted)) such as Physics.

I agree with that ... unless you are omnipresent or something it would be near impossible to cheat without being called out.

Is this sarcasm? I take it that you have never studied any math nor physics. I am not too surprised, given our exchanges before. Maybe you can show me how we prove that 1 + 2 = 12, using the standard definitions of the communtative ring. You might get a Ph'D if you succeed.

[Angel von Himmel]

Is this sarcasm? I take it that you have never studied any math nor physics. I am not too surprised, given our exchanges before. Maybe you can show me how we prove that 1 + 2 = 12, using the standard definitions of the communtative ring. You might get a Ph'D if you succeed.

I can not show you that 1+2 equals 12, but 1+1 does equal 01.

[wym123]

Would you like to share your education background? I am really curious.

I studied Religion, Philosophy, Psychology, and Greek, Hebrew, and German at a university for four years, along with taking several computer science classes. I am currently transferring to another University where I can finish up my teaching credentials for German, Philosophy, Psychology, etc. and am in the process of preparing for a Master's degree program.

Only Master's? Why not go for a Ph'D since in your opinion, they are quite easy to acquire.

[wym123]

Is this sarcasm? I take it that you have never studied any math nor physics. I am not too surprised, given our exchanges before. Maybe you can show me how we prove that 1 + 2 = 12, using the standard definitions of the communtative ring. You might get a Ph'D if you succeed.

I can not show you that 1+2 equals 12, but 1+1 does equal 01.

Please do.

[tcaudilllg]

Are you using the outliers as justification to doubt the rigor of a doctorate degree? If not, then my point still stands. Ph'Ds are hard to earn and those with Ph'D are definitely less likely to spew crap out than the average joe, therefore, the education does matter.

And that is what I call Naive ...

VERY naive. I was wrong about you wym123, you're just another "intellectual" biggot.

I just want to know that I do plan to grind your precious "academic establishment" to the ground one day. You seem to have definite insecurities about your own reasoning ability.

[wym123]

Are you using the outliers as justification to doubt the rigor of a doctorate degree? If not, then my point still stands. Ph'Ds are hard to earn and those with Ph'D are definitely less likely to spew crap out than the average joe, therefore, the education does matter.

And that is what I call Naive ...

VERY naive. I was wrong about you wym123, you're just another "intellectual" biggot.

Justify your statement. If you people think that it is very easy to get a Ph'D in Physics, you people should go try.

It would be nice if you could answer the questions I posed.

[Angel von Himmel]

Only Master's? Why not go for a Ph'D since in your opinion, they are quite easy to acquire.

Who said they were easy to aquire .. that's not my opinion and I know you are trying to put me into a contradictorary logic trap; that does not work with me if you are attempting to prove a point of some sort.

[wym123]

Only Master's? Why not go for a Ph'D since in your opinion, they are quite easy to acquire.

Who said they were easy to aquire .. that's not my opinion and I know you are trying to put me into a contradictorary logic trap; that does not work with me if you are attempting to prove a point of some sort.

Can't you just cheat your way through as you claimed?

[Angel von Himmel]

Only Master's? Why not go for a Ph'D since in your opinion, they are quite easy to acquire.

Who said they were easy to aquire .. that's not my opinion and I know you are trying to put me into a contradictorary logic trap; that does not work with me if you are attempting to prove a point of some sort.

Can't you just cheat your way through as you claimed?

Naw, I'd rather just go to a reputable school like harvard and pay my way to passing grades and a degree like all the politicians and celebrities do.

[wym123]

Are you using the outliers as justification to doubt the rigor of a doctorate degree? If not, then my point still stands. Ph'Ds are hard to earn and those with Ph'D are definitely less likely to spew crap out than the average joe, therefore, the education does matter.

And that is what I call Naive ...

VERY naive. I was wrong about you wym123, you're just another "intellectual" biggot.

I just want to know that I do plan to grind your precious "academic establishment" to the ground one day. You seem to have definite insecurities about your own reasoning ability.

You sent me a pm to ask me to write something in your thread. Do you really want me to do that? I can write something but from the looks of it, I won't be in agreement (I will definitely be picking it apart). Rick picked it apart a bit and you just told him to back off. Looks like someone else here has "definite insecurities about his own reasoning ability."

[wym123]

Only Master's? Why not go for a Ph'D since in your opinion, they are quite easy to acquire.

Who said they were easy to aquire .. that's not my opinion and I know you are trying to put me into a contradictorary logic trap; that does not work with me if you are attempting to prove a point of some sort.

Can't you just cheat your way through as you claimed?

Naw, I'd rather just go to a reputable school like harvard and pay my way to passing grades and a degree like all the politicians and celebrities do.

Those people have doctorate degrees??? I didn't know that!!!
*Gasp*

[Rocky]

Only Master's? Why not go for a Ph'D since in your opinion, they are quite easy to acquire.

Who said they were easy to aquire .. that's not my opinion and I know you are trying to put me into a contradictorary logic trap; that does not work with me if you are attempting to prove a point of some sort.

Can't you just cheat your way through as you claimed?

Naw, I'd rather just go to a reputable school like harvard and pay my way to passing grades and a degree like all the politicians and celebrities do.

*brain explodes*

*DIES*

[Angel von Himmel]

Are you using the outliers as justification to doubt the rigor of a doctorate degree? If not, then my point still stands. Ph'Ds are hard to earn and those with Ph'D are definitely less likely to spew crap out than the average joe, therefore, the education does matter.

And that is what I call Naive ...

VERY naive. I was wrong about you wym123, you're just another "intellectual" biggot.

I just want to know that I do plan to grind your precious "academic establishment" to the ground one day. You seem to have definite insecurities about your own reasoning ability.

You sent me a pm to ask me to write something in your thread. Do you really want me to do that? I can write something but from the looks of it, I won't be in agreement (I will definitely be picking it apart). Rick picked it apart a bit and you just told him to back off. Looks like someone else here has "definite insecurities about his own reasoning ability."

Hmmmm ... I actually agree with tcaudilllg for once ...

[wym123]

Are you using the outliers as justification to doubt the rigor of a doctorate degree? If not, then my point still stands. Ph'Ds are hard to earn and those with Ph'D are definitely less likely to spew crap out than the average joe, therefore, the education does matter.

And that is what I call Naive ...

VERY naive. I was wrong about you wym123, you're just another "intellectual" biggot.

I just want to know that I do plan to grind your precious "academic establishment" to the ground one day. You seem to have definite insecurities about your own reasoning ability.

You sent me a pm to ask me to write something in your thread. Do you really want me to do that? I can write something but from the looks of it, I won't be in agreement (I will definitely be picking it apart). Rick picked it apart a bit and you just told him to back off. Looks like someone else here has "definite insecurities about his own reasoning ability."

Hmmmm ... I actually agree with tcaudilllg for once ...

I hope you enjoying agreeing with people that spew out crap.

You studied Philosophy right? Do you have any comments about his ideas? Please apply the rigorous deductive reasoning that you were supposed to acquire during your study of Philosophy. Please make a comment on the well-definedness of his ideas. Please comment on the consistency of his ideas thoughout the essay.

[tcaudilllg]

Are you using the outliers as justification to doubt the rigor of a doctorate degree? If not, then my point still stands. Ph'Ds are hard to earn and those with Ph'D are definitely less likely to spew crap out than the average joe, therefore, the education does matter.

And that is what I call Naive ...

VERY naive. I was wrong about you wym123, you're just another "intellectual" biggot.

Justify your statement. If you people think that it is very easy to get a Ph'D in Physics, you people should go try.

It would be nice if you could answer the questions I posed.

First of all I don't care for mathematics in as much as I can throw it. Mathematics does little more than abstractly model an intuitive perception. You know that. For another thing I have an issue with the reliance on archaic, very vague symbols for independent systems within these models. (what else to expect from an institution dominated by NTPs? (although I'm sure even some of them concurr with my arguement)) Not only, but it's getting worse! An implied convention that makes a mathematical expression shorter, but even more obscure, is considered a triumph! Have you seen Wikipedia!? Yet I've seen computer programs--and if you look for them on the internet you will find them--that model the Maxwell equations and Einstein's field equations with multiplication, division, and control structures! What possible logical argument can be made for preserving the archaic, woefully convoluted (and getting more so every day...!) symbolic simplification system over the much more readable and learnable code of C or BASIC? Tell me one physical system that has been successfully simulated that hasn't been written in C--just one! If I want to model a mathematical equation, I'll do it in programming and put it to immediate use. (or at least pseudocode)

Now how can you possibly justify a system that still forces people to use "greek" in professional environments when there are much better alternatives very well known and immediately available? The only plausible reason I can see for it is to preserve an aura of mysticism and superiority in "experts", and to make powerful information architectures difficult to interpret.

[Angel von Himmel]

Are you using the outliers as justification to doubt the rigor of a doctorate degree? If not, then my point still stands. Ph'Ds are hard to earn and those with Ph'D are definitely less likely to spew crap out than the average joe, therefore, the education does matter.

And that is what I call Naive ...

VERY naive. I was wrong about you wym123, you're just another "intellectual" biggot.

I just want to know that I do plan to grind your precious "academic establishment" to the ground one day. You seem to have definite insecurities about your own reasoning ability.

You sent me a pm to ask me to write something in your thread. Do you really want me to do that? I can write something but from the looks of it, I won't be in agreement (I will definitely be picking it apart). Rick picked it apart a bit and you just told him to back off. Looks like someone else here has "definite insecurities about his own reasoning ability."

Hmmmm ... I actually agree with tcaudilllg for once ...

I hope you enjoying agreeing with people that spew out crap.

You studied Philosophy right? Do you have any comments about his ideas? Please apply the rigorous deductive reasoning that you were supposed to acquire during your study of Philosophy. Please make a comment on the well-definedness of his ideas. Please comment on the consistency of his ideas thoughout the essay.

Awe, look at this ... you want me to apply my application of what I know personally about philosophy so you can make me look stupid about what I know and feel better! How charming!

[Rocky]

Rick picked it apart a bit and you just told him to back off. Looks like someone else here has "definite insecurities about his own reasoning ability."

You studied Philosophy right? Do you have any comments about his ideas? Please apply the rigorous deductive reasoning that you were supposed to acquire during your study of Philosophy. Please make a comment on the well-definedness of his ideas. Please comment on the consistency of his ideas thoughout the essay.

What you have to remember about tcaudlllig is that he is Ti.

1) Ti types often turn their ideas into their identitiy, so when people criticize them, they take it personally and rigidly defend their stance ignoring outside perspective.

2) Because they are apparently anti-positivists, they don't mind things being idealized, philosophical, or rounding out the edges to fit into any system.