Why does Phaedrus think I'm an ENTp?

[Phaedrus]

waking up early as opposed to late cannot possibly be a trait related to rationality/irrationality and/or temperament

I haven't said that it is. The hypothesis is that being a "night owl" or being a "morning bird" is related to J/P. And we already know that this "bird" phenomenon is biological in nature. It has been studied by sleep scientists.

and this argument should not necessarily determine one's type;

If the correlation is correct, it would be a very helpful and strong indication of someone's type.

there are way too many people that would not fit that designation.

No, there are only two options: night owl or morning bird. Which you are can be determined in a sleep laboratory if not by other means.

i can stay up until three in the morning when i have nothing to do; i think i could be classified rather safely as a late sleeper.

Just as I would expect.

my dad, who i believe to be LIE (and all other alternatives that i hold as plausible possibilities, mainly LII and LSI, are rational as well) also fits squarely under this designation.

If you have typed him correctly -- both his socionic type and his "sleep group" -- he would be a treat to the validity of the general pattern.

these data are totally meaningless on the grand scale of things, yet, if they are correct (which, frankly, given the amount of highly questionable data you have presented, you have no business disputing) then your theory is contradicted. not a very solid theory at all; even if you don't realize it, the claim is highly absurd.

Of course it is not a solid theory. It is not even a theory, it is a hypothesis. Popper would have called the thesis "bold", since it is so easy to falsify, which is exactly what a good scientific hypothesis should be. And we should not try to confirm it, we should try to falsify it. If we don't succeed in falsifying it might become more and more corroborated and eventually be accepted as a member in the group of hypotheses we hold as true based on our current understanding of things.

[aestrivex]

waking up early as opposed to late cannot possibly be a trait related to rationality/irrationality and/or temperament

I haven't said that it is. The hypothesis is that being a "night owl" or being a "morning bird" is related to J/P. And we already know that this "bird" phenomenon is biological in nature. It has been studied by sleep scientists.

yeah; that's what i meant.

Of course it is not a solid theory. It is not even a theory, it is a hypothesis. Popper would have called the thesis "bold", since it is so easy to falsify, which is exactly what a good scientific hypothesis should be. And we should not try to confirm it, we should try to falsify it. If we don't succeed in falsifying it might become more and more corroborated and eventually be accepted as a member in the group of hypotheses we hold as true based on our current understanding of things.

yes; and by the simplistic, nonvariable nature of your reasoning i have just falsified it with my example. end of story.

[Logos]

and this argument should not necessarily determine one's type;

If the correlation is correct, it would be a very helpful and strong indication of someone's type.

This is ultimately what your argument hinges upon - if - to which there is no guarantee or necessary sign of a correlation.

there are way too many people that would not fit that designation.

No, there are only two options: night owl or morning bird. Which you are can be determined in a sleep laboratory if not by other means.

Yes there are only too options, but the people to whom those types belong do not necessarily fall neatly or categorically within those two options.

my dad, who i believe to be LIE (and all other alternatives that i hold as plausible possibilities, mainly LII and LSI, are rational as well) also fits squarely under this designation.

If you have typed him correctly -- both his socionic type and his "sleep group" -- he would be a treat to the validity of the general pattern.

A threat to the validity? You make it sound as if you plan on exterminating him since he contradicts your precious validity.

[Phaedrus]

This is ultimately what your argument hinges upon - if - to which there is no guarantee or necessary sign of a correlation.

So far everything suggests that there is a correlation. I have seen this pattern, now we should try to falsify the hypothesis.

Yes there are only too options, but the people to whom those types belong do not necessarily fall neatly or categorically within those two options.

And how do you know that?

A threat to the validity? You make it sound as if you plan on exterminating him since he contradicts your precious validity.

That's ridiculous. I don't understand how you reason. I try to investigate this issue scientifically. Why do you have a problem with that?

[Ms. Kensington]

mystic Vis NTp.