Posted By alysaria on 14 Oct 2011 03:03 PM
(I know you were teasing, but I was struck by a thought that I felt like posting....because sometimes I feel like typing in a pretentious accent)

How do you define something? A creature chewing grass on a hill..... I could give you enough relative descriptors that you might eventually figure it out, or I could say "cow." Stereo typically, it's black and white....that's a simple, childlike way of drawing the animal in order to clearly convey the idea of cow. Does that mean all cows are black and white? Of course not. But does that mean that the attributes of a cow are stereotypical if they *are* universal (for the most part - for the purpose of this analogy we can discount weird birth defects, accidents, or bovine surgery). A cow moos. A cow has an udder, horns, and a tail. A cow has 4 cloven hooves. It's a pretty basic description, but as accurate you can get with what you observe. A cow may have multiple stomachs and it might have edible meat, but that's based on knowledge and not observation of said grazing creature. If an item defies definition, then it needs no label. If all cloven animals were just defined as cloven animals, then the concept of cow would serve no purpose.

While personality types are not absolutes....they are a smaller label of a larger whole. A stereotype is to take a characteristic that defines a single person or a handful of people within the group and universalize it without any real research or evidence that it is indeed a recurring trait. The cows in one county may all be black an white, but it's a false statement to call all cows black and white based on the limited experience of only ever seeing cows in that county. However, it would be true to say that all cows have udders and are capable of producing milk. At face value it only looks like the statements are valid or fallible, and that's true objectively.....but whether the information is correct, to simply observe one herd of cattle or one small portion of a larger group and make a round statement about it is wrong and a terrible scientific method.

Yet, without any observation at all as to the nature of a cow, there would be no clear designation. But if there are defining attributes, it seems to call for a label...or a name if you'd rather. Psychology is more difficult to observe the same way, which is why it requires constant analysis to really define the nature of a type. Thus: Hypothesize, test, confirm or deny....repeat many, many, many, many, many, many times.

Which brings me back to statements about type. Most are observed, hypothesized, and tested....and in fact each post restating the information is a hypothesis in and of itself, open to a response from a knowledgeable source (IE: someone of that personality type). Even with myself as a good basis for starting out on a diagram of "ENFP", I can't make judgements about the whole group based on things that could very well be biased by my personal experiences, other psychological variables (enneagram, personality disorders, stress), age/maturity level, or any other factors that could skew the results. Once all of the information refined and purified to its most basic elements....ENFPs go on tangents.

Okay... got you... So since you get that it was a joke, let it go. ^^

 

Posted By alysaria on 15 Oct 2011 04:35 PM
>.> mine was a joke too.....a huge lead up to a tiny little punchline

Ah, sorry didn't get it. lol 

Maybe you created a whole story in your mind for that person...and you feel in love with that story!At least...this is my idea.Anyway,about being "weird"...I think that if you analyze enough a person, you're bound to find it weird to a certain degree!
In a word...weird is a label,exactly as normal! There is no weird,as there is no normal,because doesn't exist a universal term of comparison for the normality!(Or if it exist,it's just an idea...which changes over time!)