Search results

Re: A Direct Challenge to Moderators If they posted on a page that is not listed here, you may.

- You seem to have arbitrarily declared the latter half another "side" simply because it is listed that way. They could be ordered in any way, and as I showed you can still conform to your constraints without solving the problem. - Mine already does show that they cancel out, because they...

How does any of that solve the ambiguity of your theory?

@clockwork Let me try to explain again. - You are measuring the strength of the nodes, and saying that weakening (or "ignoring" or "limiting") one allows another to be stronger. So as nodes are added or removed, strength is redistributed. - You assign an intelligence value based on the...

I don't know what this thread is about anymore. If you acknowledge that stereotyping has a negative definition, why should we fuck off with "you may not use stereotyping"? What makes you think anyone is referring to your alternate definition?

You will definitely need to explain that better. More importantly, give which, if any, existing models do fit your constraint... and if none do, propose a new one. My example was deliberately unspecific and contrived, but I don't see how it couldn't apply to real models. For example, someone...

"Typing=stereotyping" -- semantics. Stereotyping has a negative connotation; it implies prejudice. To put it in strictly "Ti-logical-categorizing" terms for you: a stereotype is a description of a subcategory applied to a larger category. Hint: there are more than 16 types of people.

It's an extreme to demonstrate the problem that exists across the entire spectrum. Other scenarios will not result in the two people being exactly equal, but it will still change the relationship. Without consistent measurement units, any value is meaningless. Yes, that's the point. You can...

It's not irrelevant. If you won't define a model then your theory is meaningless, because it's intrinsically dependent on the amount/distribution of intelligence types. Supposing 8 "options", consider a "balanced" person to a specialist (percentages are the degree to which they "ignore all...

Don't worry about it. She's just trying to guilt-trip you.

I have never seen any pre-schooled child who is not in a near-constant state of enthusiastically questioning and learning. It is only after their institutionalization that their attitudes change. What is there that we can't function without, yet its lack would not be self-evident that we...

Are you sure?

Well, you're talking about intended to be perceived (by audience) as an accurate portrayal versus actually perceived (by self) as an accurate portrayal which is a more subtle difference, sure. But neither apply here, because it was never presented as accurate whatsoever.

^ Speaking of missing critical details: a strawman is a misrepresentation that is intended to be perceived as an accurate portrayal. So no, it wasn't, because there was no deception; the fact that it was a misrepresentation was expected to be obvious to both participants and the audience. It was...

It was practically the opposite of a strawman, because if it was an accurate representation of what you were arguing, his position would have been disproved. Remember, his position is that you are not actually contradicting each other. It's not "this is what you're arguing"; it's "this is what...

1. Having not read many other exchanges between you and CC, I could give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is accurate in general, but even so, I would have to say that it doesn't hold true in this thread. 2. I don't see how any of this is relevant. Granted, you were comparing...

He wasn't playing mind games. How? There was no substance to what you said. You were basically saying you were more likely to be correct because you are a more objective thinker, without actually presenting anything objectively correct. Essentially a self-referential appeal to authority...

Blarraun's post's "implied" connection to MBTI was only through its reference to your own post, which in turn was founded on your misinterpretation of CC's post. Neither CC or Blarraun were saying what you thought they were. You completely constructed the illusion of confusion out of your own.

Who misunderstood?

I'm confused as to why you think there is any confusion.

You misread. The comparison was one archetype in relation to all other archetypes. It had nothing at all to do with alternative theories, let alone MBTI specifically.

89% Creator 66% Innocent 65% Sage 62% Seeker 59% Fool 59% Warrior 56% Caregiver 51% Destroyer 43% Lover 41% Ruler 36% Magician 22% Orphan

Read what you said that clockwork quoted. You were not talking about working hard.

evidence

I used to use this thing, which gave me the illusion that I could keep track of all the branching threads of research. I could collapse a branch and move to another, assured that I could go back and follow it again later (all tabs were saved across browsing sessions). In the end it only...

These are from YTMND in case anyone doesn't know. YTMND in general relies a lot on referential / interrelated humor, and each individual "joke" only lasts a few seconds. As a stand-alone 10-minute compilation, it doesn't really work. lol

No, you're reading far too much into what I said. I have only commented on one specific aspect: the position, relative to total duration, of what is someone's focal point in a piece of music -- this is an extraneous detail. :ahh04:

While some people may find different parts notable, I don't think the position in relation to the rest of the music is an aspect that informs the preference... so you can't extrapolate something like "they have a greater interest in how things turn out". One person may focus on the beginning of...

Is there a limited window of time in which you can decide whether to move?

Most people focus on the most notable part because it's... uh... the most notable. This may be the introductory stage (see: Also sprach Zarathustra).

Found it!

Well, that would make sense if it hadn't ended 4 days before you posted that.

So, what exactly is the critical new information that gives us that clarifies things?

Really? Did you miss these and other similar comments: I think you're being overly pessimistic to think that valuing meaningfulness over income is so rare. The problem I have with OP isn't that he's saying we should reject that ideology; it's that he's baselessly discounting having a...

It's narcissistic to define respectability based only on your own interests. If you have a job where you work with these ideas, it would be reasonable to be frustrated with your colleagues if they are all below your level of competence... but you're extending it beyond the appropriate context...

No he isn't. So working for someone for the sole purpose of money is for dumb people? Agreed. But doesn't your solution also involve setting up a system for the sole purpose of money? "finding a way to generate automatically money(with a blog for example or a product)". If this isn't something...

No, I'm only indoctrinated just enough to think it can be a viable option. Although again, "having a job" isn't well-defined and I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. I don't have time to look at that in detail now, but this looks like one of those loathsome people who make...

Are you saying the framework is incoherent? Even if it's bullshit, that's no defense for getting it wrong as long as its own rules don't contradict each other.

I think you need to clearly define what it is dumb, because it seems like "jobs and salaries" isn't mutually exclusive with what you've given as the alternative. Also, I'm not so sure that this idea is "quite popular on the internet", rather than that the sort of people who make their living...

No poster more consistently gives me uncertainty about whether he/she is serious than you.

Most things that matter can be changed.

http://threevirtues.com/

Or neither because discussions ⊄ debates.

It sounds like you're a nonconformist, liberal rebel who avoids conflict.

In practice we can't take everything already decided into consideration when setting a price. I'm only making the point that something doesn't need to be an independently measurable quantity in order to be treated mathematically.

Mathematics doesn't need values. Everything can be algebraic equations. You just need a group of people to agree on the relationship between values. If you agree to do job A for 2 hours if someone will do job B for 1 hour then 2a = b. The next week they agree that you can do a half hour of job C...

Okay, but do you still mean "meant to" in the sense that it's the intended goal of the developers? My response would be the same if so. We can speculate about the future, but I don't think we can extrapolate "working both ways" from this technology. The other way, if possible, would be a...

Or don't, because they're not.

I don't plan to.