Jean Piaget

[krieger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget

[Exodus]

INTj.

Looks like an ILI at first sight... I have never found his writings particularly easy to read. In fact to me they seemed rather unnecessarily obfuscated, which is usually an indication that I'm dealing with a person of a type far removed from my own.

Although it may sound nice, this is a really bad way of determining someone's type. If you have a specific reason why he is hard for you to read (a reason that is publicly obvious), it could possibly be of some use.

[krieger]

Hmm.. I disagree rather strongly with what you are saying there. Two people with the same information metabolism type should be able to read eachothers writings with virtually no effort. The stream of thought of one should naturally supplement that of the other. I experience this kind of intersubjectivity with many, many writers, but not with him. This is a fact of note, and I would be a fool to ignore it. In fact, now that I have made it public, anyone would be.

Now perhaps you'd argue that typology has not reached the level of descriptivity at which it ascertains the structure of a person's information processing to a degree neccesary to merit this kind of reasoning. If this is the case however, we need to ask ourselves what influences exist that interfere with it, and how they interfere with each one of the other means we have of determining 'type'. If the human brain, by doing just the thing it has evolved towards being able to do after a process spanning millions of years: learning to recognize patterns in streams of complex data, is capable of intuitively determining 'type' just by orienting to a network of 'intertype relations', why can it not do so by orienting to the words a person writes? Why can it compare type descriptions to behavior and not compare different behaviors between types? If it cannot glean definite hints of a person's type through that person's writing, how is it that it determined the existence of type in the first place?

Also, if you would not trust your own ability to tell a person's type simply by analyzing their language, keep in mind that there could be others that would, and with justification.

-- even having written all that, I'm nuancing my opinion on his type a bit. Still, I'd like to know of other INTj's that build their views on things like 'adaptation' and 'intelligence' straight up from the established notions traversing the community at a specific time instead of exploring options directly by the subject material in front of him, and explaining/describing them in their terms.

[Creepy-bg]

This is a fact of note, and I would be a fool to ignore it. In fact, now that I have made it public, anyone would be.

please don't become another Tcaud

[olduser]

Don't discount his expertise interfering with your understanding. You know what he is writing about, but not in as fine of detail.

Also, as you said, the human brain can interpret and sort out many processes and patterns in a stream of complex data. Well, in creating a stream of complex data(such as writing) we can use many processes and patterns. And given that it would be impossible to narrow each one down to a specific type. Or even certain patterns of processes would be impossible to narrow down. Plus, writing is a system of logic-- it has rules of it's own which must be obeyed. When someone is operating within this system they are stifling a part of themselves, that part which we desperately seek, their thoughts and natural logical progressions. They are translating everything through the complex system of grammar and syntax. Basically, writing is a distraction because it is not the person's person, but a person translated through a series of rules which may inhibit or add to his personality. I think if a person is to be typed correctly the typer must have raw data. Interaction is probably the only typing I'll take for accurate. Everything else is formatted and is subject to doctoring.

[Exodus]

Hmm.. I disagree rather strongly with what you are saying there. Two people with the same information metabolism type should be able to read eachothers writings with virtually no effort. The stream of thought of one should naturally supplement that of the other. I experience this kind of intersubjectivity with many, many writers, but not with him. This is a fact of note, and I would be a fool to ignore it. In fact, now that I have made it public, anyone would be.

Also, if you would not trust your own ability to tell a person's type simply by analyzing their language, keep in mind that there could be others that would, and with justification.

Let me say this again:

If you have a specific reason why he is hard for you to read (a reason that is publicly obvious), it could possibly be of some use.

I think typing people off of writings is a highly fascinating and fruitful method; I myself use it frequently. Te and Fe stand out in writing like a sore thumb sometimes.

But merely saying "this does/does not sound like something I would write" is something quite different.

-- even having written all that, I'm nuancing my opinion on his type a bit. Still, I'd like to know of other INTj's that build their views on things like 'adaptation' and 'intelligence' straight up from the established notions traversing the community at a specific time instead of exploring options directly by the subject material in front of him, and explaining/describing them in their terms.

What?