I'm sure you think this too.Originally Posted by Olga
A non sequitur. Faith in a concept doesn't prove its truth. It only provides proof of persuasion.
Mohammed has followers. L. Ron Hubbard has followers. Shoko Asahara has followers. Jim Jones had followers. Rasputin had followers. ******, Jesus, Lenin, Zoroaster, Stalin, Ghengis, Hoxha, Mussolini, Mao, on and on, they all have or had followers. But that has nothing to do with the factuality of the views they expounded. It only means they were convincing to others, and perhaps to themselves as well. Were they all able to inspire thought and action? Most definitely. Were any of them correct? That is entirely a matter of debate.
I agree.
TPE must stand on its own merits, not yours, even if you're its author. So personal credential are immaterial.Associative approach is relatively new and it is fun to explore and work with. If you don't like it or approve it - that's your choice. It does already exists and grows. It was born actually on this forum in 2005.
Now your thoughts on the operational roles of blocks in Model A have caught my interest, so I'll be giving those closer study because they seem the most worthwhile aspect of what you've presented. However, I regard the music and color components mostly as sideshows that lack a sufficient logical and evidential basis. At best the music typing is a variant of info aspect semantics, so it retains some value. But Lüscher's color theory borders on being meaningless, at least as it's being employed here. This sort of thing would be put to better use by asking examinees what they associate with various colors so the general nature of their thoughts can be observed in their expressions, not by assigning ontological values to colors under the assumption that preferences for them are causally determinant of mental orientations.
All told, whether I like or believe what you're saying, none of this is a deterrent to examining or commenting on this system.
Reply With Quote