Page 184 of 184 FirstFirst ... 84134174180181182183184
Results 7,321 to 7,335 of 7335

Thread: Typology Random Thoughts

  1. #7321
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,189
    Mentioned
    507 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    subreddit Community size MBTI type %
    https://www.reddit.com/r/INFP 234,000 INFP 19.2%
    https://www.reddit.com/r/INTP 199,000 INTP 16.4%
    https://www.reddit.com/r/INFJ 190,000 INFJ 15.6%
    https://www.reddit.com/r/INTJ 181,000 INTJ 14.9%
    https://www.reddit.com/r/ENFP 106,000 ENFP 8.7%
    https://www.reddit.com/r/ENTP 81,000 ENTP 6.7%
    https://www.reddit.com/r/ENTJ 40,000 ENTJ 3.3%
    https://www.reddit.com/r/ISTP 40,000 ISTP 3.3%
    https://www.reddit.com/r/ENFJ 37,000 ENFJ 3.0%
    https://www.reddit.com/r/ISFP 28,000 ISFP 2.3%
    https://www.reddit.com/r/ISTJ 23,000 ISTJ 1.9%
    https://www.reddit.com/r/ISFJ 22,000 ISFJ 1.8%
    https://www.reddit.com/r/ESTP 11,000 ESTP 0.9%
    https://www.reddit.com/r/ESFP 9,900 ESFP 0.8%
    https://www.reddit.com/r/ESFJ 8,300 ESFJ 0.7%
    https://www.reddit.com/r/ESTJ 6,100 ESTJ 0.5%

  2. #7322
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,189
    Mentioned
    507 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SacredKnowing View Post
    From Steven Dutch, professor emeritus of geology at University of Wisconsin-Green Bay:
    Reading more fully what he actually said, he actually seems to think a theory must be based on observations.

    A theory can be an inaccurate explanation of observations, but it must be based on observations in order to be a theory. At least, a scientific one, which is the only meaningful sense.

    It's a hypothesis that doesn't "need" to be demonstrated, but it would remain unproven if so. A hypothesis still must be a explanation of observations. I don't regard Socionics as even a hypothesis because it lacks precise definition of alleged observations.

  3. #7323
    Not sensitive! SacredKnowing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    TIM
    ILE-H
    Posts
    560
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enters Laughing View Post
    Reading more fully what he actually said, he actually seems to think a theory must be based on observations.

    A theory can be an inaccurate explanation of observations, but it must be based on observations in order to be a theory. At least, a scientific one, which is the only meaningful sense.

    It's a hypothesis that doesn't "need" to be demonstrated, but it would remain unproven if so. A hypothesis still must be a explanation of observations. I don't regard Socionics as even a hypothesis because it lacks precise definition of alleged observations.
    What about music theory? Number theory? Computational complexity theory? All of the cool theories are not based on observations.
    [Today 03:36 AM] anotherperson: this forum feels like the edge of the internet

  4. #7324
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,189
    Mentioned
    507 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SacredKnowing View Post
    What about music theory? Number theory? Computational complexity theory? All of the cool theories are not based on observations.
    They could be, if based on observation. I think a good argument could be made for the mathematical universe being a dimension of reality, although I don't currently lean towards such a view.

  5. #7325
    Not sensitive! SacredKnowing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    TIM
    ILE-H
    Posts
    560
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enters Laughing View Post
    They could be, if based on observation. I think a good argument could be made for the mathematical universe being a dimension of reality, although I don't currently lean towards such a view.
    Maybe a model is a theory that's not based on observation, and a theory is a model that's based on observation. What do you think about that?
    [Today 03:36 AM] anotherperson: this forum feels like the edge of the internet

  6. #7326
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,189
    Mentioned
    507 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SacredKnowing View Post
    Maybe a model is a theory that's not based on observation, and a theory is a model that's based on observation. What do you think about that?
    Maybe I'm too hardline about how words are actually used and too prone to insisting on my usage.

    A model to be me sounds like it's a set of ideas or notions whether or not they have evidence to it, but a theory could just be one idea or statement that explains an observation.

    Basically, people have speculations, conjectures, intuitions etc. which may or may not be based on observations.

    Then there is the hypothesis, which is a plausible (possible by current understanding) explanation of observations, which can be tested to be established to be true or false to a level of confidence.

    Then there is the (scientific) theory which is an explanation substantiated with evidence (observations) to a certain level of confidence.

    Then there are scientific laws, which are categorically true explanations of reality for specific conditions: which have been demonstrated to be true in all such cases. The laws of gravity are true in classical physics for example, and are generally useful to be regarded as such, but at the quantum level, our understanding needs to be supplemented. As I understand, gravity doesn't actually exist as a distinct entity.

    In the time of Euclid, it was held to be true that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but this was based on an incomplete understanding of reality, and an incomplete definition. If Euclid had said this applies to planar geometry, he would have been correct. Unless somehow our understanding is still incomplete.

  7. #7327
    Not sensitive! SacredKnowing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    TIM
    ILE-H
    Posts
    560
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enters Laughing View Post
    In the time of Euclid, it was held to be true that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but this was based on an incomplete understanding of reality, and an incomplete definition. If Euclid had said this applies to planar geometry, he would have been correct. Unless somehow our understanding is still incomplete.
    By the definition of a straight line, it is the shortest distance between two points. Therefore this is true for any geometry that has an object named "line" (which is to say, all of them). What Euclid presumed was that given a straight line and a point not on that line, the geometer could construct only one line that is parallel, and that it was logically impossible for there to be a second parallel line that could be constructed through the same point (Why? Who knew how ancient people thought?). Other geometries, such as hyperbolic, allow the geometer to construct more than one parallel line (again, given a fixed point and line beforehand).
    Last edited by SacredKnowing; 06-16-2024 at 06:01 AM. Reason: Added clarification and corrected spelling error.
    [Today 03:36 AM] anotherperson: this forum feels like the edge of the internet

  8. #7328
    Subthigh Enters Laughing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Beijing
    TIM
    TMI
    Posts
    19,189
    Mentioned
    507 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    @SacredKnowing

    On a sphere, the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line, and spacetime is distorted by mass so that the shortest distance between two points is curved.

    Hence there are non-Euclidean triangles.


  9. #7329
    Not sensitive! SacredKnowing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    TIM
    ILE-H
    Posts
    560
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Enters Laughing

    You are equivocating line with geodesic. What is depicted on the right diagram are three geodesic. By Euclid's first postulate, a line is the shortest distance between two points, and in absolute geometry all theorems following from the first post late hold in all possible models.
    [Today 03:36 AM] anotherperson: this forum feels like the edge of the internet

  10. #7330
    Ikite iru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    LII-C
    Posts
    4,655
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NpvpYTUSdQ0

    I think she resembles Jack from WSS
    Quote Originally Posted by idiot View Post
    I have been thinking about what Alive was saying about everyone on here being IEI, and I conclude that he is right, or at least he is on to something.

    If Jung based his theories on the people he met in his life, even if he met more people than the average person, that means that he based his theories on a certain type of person. The type of person who might go to him for therapy or talks, or who might believe the esoteric ideas he was spouting at the time. Thus it's possible that he did not categorize all humans into types, but just made subtypes for a specific type of person. This overarching type of person is the same type that is heavily interested in theories of this kind, and whom Alive says is an IEI.

    Therefore, Alive is right. We are all IEIs with subtypes. With that, I'm off this forum
    https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...ung-s-subjects

  11. #7331
    Ikite iru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    LII-C
    Posts
    4,655
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Enters Laughing the guy in your signature looks a lot like Vsauce
    Quote Originally Posted by idiot View Post
    I have been thinking about what Alive was saying about everyone on here being IEI, and I conclude that he is right, or at least he is on to something.

    If Jung based his theories on the people he met in his life, even if he met more people than the average person, that means that he based his theories on a certain type of person. The type of person who might go to him for therapy or talks, or who might believe the esoteric ideas he was spouting at the time. Thus it's possible that he did not categorize all humans into types, but just made subtypes for a specific type of person. This overarching type of person is the same type that is heavily interested in theories of this kind, and whom Alive says is an IEI.

    Therefore, Alive is right. We are all IEIs with subtypes. With that, I'm off this forum
    https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...ung-s-subjects

  12. #7332
    Disillusionment and acceptance qaz00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    undercurrents
    TIM
    Dual eyes
    Posts
    855
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikite iru View Post
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NpvpYTUSdQ0

    I think she resembles Jack from WSS
    C-SEE-Fi, Jack ILE>EIE

  13. #7333
    Ikite iru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    LII-C
    Posts
    4,655
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by idiot View Post
    I have been thinking about what Alive was saying about everyone on here being IEI, and I conclude that he is right, or at least he is on to something.

    If Jung based his theories on the people he met in his life, even if he met more people than the average person, that means that he based his theories on a certain type of person. The type of person who might go to him for therapy or talks, or who might believe the esoteric ideas he was spouting at the time. Thus it's possible that he did not categorize all humans into types, but just made subtypes for a specific type of person. This overarching type of person is the same type that is heavily interested in theories of this kind, and whom Alive says is an IEI.

    Therefore, Alive is right. We are all IEIs with subtypes. With that, I'm off this forum
    https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...ung-s-subjects

  14. #7334
    Disillusionment and acceptance qaz00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    undercurrents
    TIM
    Dual eyes
    Posts
    855
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikite iru View Post
    EIE

  15. #7335
    Ikite iru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    LII-C
    Posts
    4,655
    Mentioned
    268 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toQ5LdpLzPk

    It's almost like similar subtypes get along with each other
    Quote Originally Posted by idiot View Post
    I have been thinking about what Alive was saying about everyone on here being IEI, and I conclude that he is right, or at least he is on to something.

    If Jung based his theories on the people he met in his life, even if he met more people than the average person, that means that he based his theories on a certain type of person. The type of person who might go to him for therapy or talks, or who might believe the esoteric ideas he was spouting at the time. Thus it's possible that he did not categorize all humans into types, but just made subtypes for a specific type of person. This overarching type of person is the same type that is heavily interested in theories of this kind, and whom Alive says is an IEI.

    Therefore, Alive is right. We are all IEIs with subtypes. With that, I'm off this forum
    https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...ung-s-subjects

Posting Permissions

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