Magnus Anderson wrote:
Why do you think Ludwig was a choleric?
He looks like a regular melancholic to me.
I think the key component of choleric temperament is speed. If you do not think and act fast, you're not a choleric. Even if you are assertive and ill tempered, if you're not a fast paced thinker, you are not a choleric. And since the mind of an introvert is constantly processing huge amounts of information, the introvert is necessarily a slow paced thinker, and thus, something other than a choleric. (Putin is an example of an assertive melancholic and Hitler is an example of an ill tempered melancholic.)
the whole hitting kids in the head with a cane thing and threatening peers with a red-hot fire poker
yours is definitely not an orthodox definition
as by the word's very definition and etymological heritage it means anger and bile
but like I said
I don't engage in discussions about meanings of words
precisely because you can take a word and say that to you it means this or that
or whatever you want
and I will not convince you of otherwise because I can't
and also because I don't care
It applies wherever words are used. And they are used in both geometry and psychology. The fact that psychologists are less rigorous doesn't mean they are free to contradict themselves.
a square and a circle are very simple geometric shapes with clearly defined formulas
which is allowed by their simplicity
evidently by cutting out the corners of a square repeatedly
you change that shape from square to octagon, to hexadecagon, etc etc
and you can continue to section of edges infinitely
until from a macro perspective the shape is indistinguishable from a circle
but it is still not a circle
thus the shape is at any given point moving closer to being a circle and having as its ascendant a square
though by definition it is neither
even if it looks just like one
and that is just a 2D shape
a human being's emotions, behaviors, propensities
are a "shape" of multiple axis and infinite graduations from one side of each spectrum to another
you could hardly know enough about that shape to even consider naming it
this is a subject in which words fail
you give me a word such as cholera, which to you has a topographic coordinate determined by your personality
and it arrives to me in a completely different coordinate
and yet we will talk about it with the assumption that we both mean the same thing
cuz it's the best we've got
words are unfortunately our only vehicle for making magic brain stuff come out
the role of the statistical analysis provided by psychometric
is to minimize the role of the ambiguity of language
from the study of personality traits
A much better defense of your position would be to claim that the word "choleric" does not mean what I think it means and that the term "choleric introvert" is not a contradiction in terms.
i did make that argument
i guess it was too subtle
it was here
phoneutria wrote:at the risk of starting a conversation about meanings of words
which i will not engage in