Originally Posted by
Shiver
A method that is not presented in a falsifiable way is something I'm not inclined to find truly useful. I see people here love to go on and on...and on...with "looks this", "looks that", "looks [type]" and that is literally all of the substance that there is presented of the process. Most people, when probed, can't even explain any kind of association of an element to the physical stereotype they're presumably basing their claim on, outside of seeing someone else do it prior. A conclusion is made based on a quick look at a person and everything from that point is rationalized after the fact.
Look at the above. Does Adam actually recognize those types, or has he simply come to erroneously believe that he can and has constructed an elaborate web of false typings and biased observations which are ultimately to blame for later social problems when attempting to apply his findings to real people? How can we know?
Those of you who answered "yes" in any form to the question posed by this thread: Nobody has any reason to believe that you can accurately type from VI until you're able to provide a satisfactory method, the results of which correlate positively with actual typings. Necessarily, it means those typings need to be demonstrated with a solid case also.
Reply With Quote
